July 2, 2019

Trump Goes to North Korea

Editor's note: We couldn’t be more proud of one of our teammates, Isaac Rose-Berman, who penned his first op-ed this week in USA Today: “How college students can bridge American divides: 'Study abroad' in Alabama or New York.” Please give it a read, and share far and wide!

“U.S. President Donald Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to set foot in North Korea on Sunday when he met its leader, Kim Jong Un, in the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) between the two Koreas and agreed to resume stalled nuclear talks.” Reuters

See past issues

From the Left

The left is generally critical of Trump’s failures to condemn Kim’s human rights abuses, and skeptical that he will obtain any tangible concessions from Kim.

“Trump has always prided himself on his willingness to speak with anyone, no matter how poor their record on human rights or their defiance of the United States… But he seems unaware of the pitfalls of the approach. Chief among them: foreign leaders feel encouraged to stick with a strategy, now tried and tested, to circumvent the rest of the U.S. government and appeal directly to the president… ‘You just can’t look at this as going over and talking to your dictator next door and bringing them a hot dish over the fence,’ [Minnesota Democratic Senator and 2020 presidential hopeful Amy Klobuchar] said on CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’ on Sunday. The U.S. needs to make ‘sure there are measurable results, that we have a plan when we go in there and we just haven’t seen that.’”
Nick Wadhams, Bloomberg

“The single, modest agreement that emerged from the encounter, which lasted fifty-three minutes, was to resume working group talks next month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters in South Korea. Asked if the hastily organized rendezvous (which must have driven the Secret Service nuts) was a gamble, Pompeo responded, ‘It worked,’ and then laughed. But he also conceded that the two sides had not yet made any progress on the issue at the heart of the negotiations—defining what ‘denuclearization’ means… A lot of work remains to get beyond the gamesmanship that has typified the first year of the Trump-Kim flirtation.”
Robin Wright, The New Yorker

“The New York Times reported on Sunday that officials inside the Trump administration (it isn’t clear who) are ‘weighing a new approach’ to arms talks, settling simply for a ‘freeze’ in North Korea’s nuclear-weapons program, at least as a ‘first step,’ rather than demanding full ‘denuclearization’ from the get-go… A freeze on all aspects of North Korea’s nuclear program isn’t a bad idea; in fact, it’s a prerequisite to step-by-step reductions. But the mere declaration of a freeze is a hollow gesture unless the North Koreans also provide a full and itemized list of what they currently possess—how many missiles, how many warheads, how much fissile material, where all this stuff is—and open up their facilities to inspection...

“The problem is the North Koreans have never agreed to submit such a list. If Trump can get Kim to do this, and to let inspectors verify its accuracy, we will look back on Sunday’s stroll across the DMZ as a truly historic moment. If not, it will be recognized, and soon forgotten, as a bit of theater staged for Kim’s domestic glorification and Trump’s reelection campaign.”
Fred Kaplan, Slate

Some argue that “The kind of personal diplomacy Trump favors can have its place. North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un cut off negotiations (and perhaps some of his negotiators) after being embarrassed by the failure of his last summit with Trump in Hanoi. Though the North hasn’t tested a nuclear weapon or long-range missile since then, its weapons programs have continued unchecked. If Trump’s handshake on the border gives Kim the cover he needs to agree to restart talks, it will have served some purpose… [But] to reach a lasting nuclear deal, Donald Trump should pull back and let his negotiators hammer out critical details.”
Editorial Board, Bloomberg

The political calendar and Trump's approach could give grounds for optimism. Kim, who has presided over a limited form of economic development inside North Korea, is under pressure to deliver improvements in the lives of his people… So he has an incentive to try to seek economic benefits or aid from the United States and wants punishing economic sanctions lifted — a potential opening for US negotiators… Kim must realize that his chances of basking in this kind of legitimacy with a US President other than Trump are slim. So if he fears Trump could lose in 2020, he may reason the time may be ripe for a deal. And Trump wants nothing more than a big diplomatic breakthrough months before the election.”
Stephen Collinson, CNN

“By declaring that the United States will respond with airstrikes to any attacks on American targets or assets, Mr. Trump is drawing a bright red line that Iran cannot cross. And yet, Iran relies on a network of proxy actors from Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Must they all respect Mr. Trump’s red line? There are plenty of hotheads in those proxy forces that will be incensed by the assassination, the same way young men with weapons and minimal discipline often are… Mr. Trump can’t keep an entire region from crossing his red line, making violent conflict all the more likely if the president holds to it…

“It is crucial that influential Republican senators like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Mitch McConnell remind Mr. Trump of his promise to keep America out of foreign quagmires and keep Mr. Trump from stumbling further into war with Iran.”
Editorial Board, New York Times

Others argue that “Biden was almost the only one on the stage who talked like a normal person. There was a point near the end of the debate when he was talking about getting men involved in stopping domestic violence and he said that we need to keep ‘punching’ at it… I knew that the twitterati and the analysts would tut tut. Ol’ Joe is just out of touch! He doesn’t know you can’t use words like that. Meanwhile, every non-political junkie watching the debate thought there was nothing wrong with this. Biden was just using ordinary language, not worrying too much if it was fully approved by the woke brigade.”
Kevin Drum, Mother Jones

From the Right

The right is cautiously optimistic about Trump’s efforts.

From the Right

The right is cautiously optimistic about Trump’s efforts.

Trump’s supporters “recognize that experts have been in charge of U.S. foreign policy for decades. And, they argue, we have little to show for it: North Korea has nuclear weapons, and China has emerged as a dangerous geopolitical foe. In their view, Trump’s dramatic breaks with the past could be the only chance the United States has to avert dangerous conflicts with one or both nations. Better to take a chance on him, they reason, than hope more of the same will yield different results… Continuing the old ways would have surely led to more North Korean tests, as sanctions unsupported by a credible military threat clearly did not deter Pyongyang.”
Henry Olsen, Washington Post

“Yes, North Korea's human rights record is an ongoing atrocity of almost immeasurable terror. But Trump's friendship with the tyrant is currently the only bulwark Americans, South Koreans, and Japan have from the Kim dynasty's typical irrational behavior. When the alternative is a North Korea capable of launching nuclear warhead-armed ballistic missiles at every major American city, or a catastrophic new Korean war, then his partnership with Kim is the way to go. Trump knows he must persuade Kim that while America might be an unusual partner, it is one that has narrow interests with North Korea and can be trusted. Such persuasion will be crucial if Kim is to abandon the hardliners in his regime, to avoid new missile tests (which otherwise are coming), and verifiably end his threat to American security.”
Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner

Some point out, however, that “the symbolism was more potent than the substance. Mr. Trump is betting, as he always does, that flattery and personal engagement can persuade Mr. Kim to give up his nuclear weapons. ‘A lot of great triumphs have been based on relationships,’ the President said Sunday in perhaps the purest distillation of a Trump Doctrine… Mr. Trump’s DMZ diplomacy has reduced the chances of new North Korean nuclear tests. But Mr. Kim wants the U.S. to ease sanctions before he takes even modest steps to disclose his research labs, test facilities and nuclear stockpiles, much less dismantle them. Without such a declaration, North Korean pledges are worthless.”
Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal

Kim Jong-un has yet to do anything to prove that he merits the sort of trust he’s asking for, and I sincerely hope that President Tump keeps holding his feet to the fire and demands IAEA inspections and verifiable proof of progress on denuclearization before beginning any sanctions relief or other normalization of North Korea as a legitimate actor in the international community.”
Jazz Shaw, Hot Air

“The talks could easily stall or fail again. Trump’s negotiators also know that given North Korea’s long record of violating prior agreements, a new agreement will have to be ironclad. with extremely strong verification provisions. Perhaps Kim will never choose to walk through that door. But perhaps the confidence-building that President Trump has initiated with his personal diplomacy will convince Kim to make a denuclearization deal that formally ends hostilities and allows North Korea to join the community of nations… The odds may still be long to reach an agreement that fully denuclearizes North Korea. But President Trump’s unorthodox diplomacy has significantly lowered tensions from the dangerous level he inherited from President Obama and opened a door to peace that no one thought possible.”
Fred Fleitz, Fox News

“I’m hearing a lot of crap about how [Trump] is giving away the store to Kim Jong-un. Well, what exactly has he given away? Large-scale military exercises are suspended, but military professionals will tell you that small-scale drills are fine for readiness. Not a single sanction has been taken off. The North can’t even connect roads with the South without violating them. There have been no U.S. military pullouts from the Peninsula. And unless you think top-down diplomacy is a concession, there haven’t been many giveaways.”
Daniel DePetris, Twitter

Others note, “I’d hate to be a Democratic member of Congress trying to convince Joe Sixpack that this is a whole new ballgame. The transcript shows Trump being Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky trying to ingratiate himself with the big dog by, for instance, mentioning that he stays at Trump hotels. Trump’s conversation is typically scattershot, wandering all over the field, leaving a reasonable listener puzzled about what the takeaways are supposed to be…

“I think Joe Sixpack’s response is going to be a hearty shrug. After all that has emerged about Trump so far, his approval rating is closely tracking Obama’s approval at the same point in his presidency. To get Mr. Sixpack’s attention you are going to have to do better than this.”
Kyle Smith, National Review

President Trump should be happy. As much as Warren is articulate, obviously intelligent, and energetically supported by Democrats, she would also be far easier to defeat than Joe Biden… Considering Trump's economy, the president is well placed to defeat Warren.”
Tom Rogan, Washington Examiner

A libertarian's take

“While running for president in 2000, George W. Bush derided ‘nation building’ and said American foreign policy should be ‘humble’ rather than ‘arrogant.’ As president, Bush brought us the disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq… While running for president in 2007, Barack Obama rejected the idea that the president has the authority to wage war without congressional authorization whenever he thinks it is in the national interest… As president, Obama did that very thing in Libya… A few years before his 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump said the U.S. should withdraw immediately from Afghanistan… As president, he sent more troops to Afghanistan…

“Three men with little or no foreign policy experience entered an office where they were surrounded by experts, and they quickly shed their initial skepticism of military intervention… we should worry about a president with little knowledge of the world whose military decisions are driven by anger or domestic political considerations. But it's not clear to me that such a president poses a bigger danger than the experts who have been disastrously wrong more times than we can count.”
Jacob Sullum, Reason

On the bright side...

A beer company is offering a free 'Deliver-a-Nonna' service where an Italian grandmother will come and cook for you in your home.
Insider

Get troll-free political news.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.