Opinion: Trump’s North Korea gamble


It’s infinitely better that North Korea and the United States exchange words rather than missiles.

Yet President Donald Trump’s decision to meet Kim Jong Un strikes me as a dangerous gamble and a bad idea. I’m afraid that North Korea may be playing Trump, and that in turn Trump may be playing us.

I fear that Trump is being played because at the outset, apparently in exchange for nothing clear-cut, he has agreed to give North Korea what it has long craved: the respect and legitimacy that comes from the North Korean leader standing as an equal beside the American president. And I worry that we in the media and the public are being played because this is a way for Trump to change the subject from a Russia investigation and a porn actress to himself as Great Peacemaker.

To be clear, I’m all for negotiations.

But direct talks should be conducted by seasoned diplomats, offering an eventual summit meeting only as a carrot at the end of the process — and only if the summit serves some purpose higher than changing the headlines in the U.S. and legitimizing Kim’s regime abroad. A face-to-face should advance the interests of two countries, not just two leaders.

There’s a misperception that the North Koreans’ offer of a direct meeting is a grand concession. Not at all. It’s something they’ve been seeking for decades, but past presidents refused.

So a summit constitutes a huge gift to Kim, and it’s puzzling that our Great Dealmaker should give up so much right off the bat.

Frankly, another fear about a Trump-Kim summit is that our president will shun advice from aides and will impetuously agree over dinner to some harebrained scheme to get a deal. (“Withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea and Okinawa? No problem, if you’ll build a wall for me.”)

Still, it’s genuinely encouraging that Kim doesn’t object to the U.S. resuming military exercises and that he seems willing to suspend missile and nuclear tests. Those are real concessions, although he apparently is not suspending production of nuclear materials or missiles; we should insist on that as well.

If Kim will halt testing, maybe there’s a grand bargain to be achieved. It would involve North Korea giving up its nuclear program in exchange for the U.S. ending sanctions and normalizing relations, with some commitments from North Korea on human rights as well. This would be a tremendous achievement that would make the world safer, but verification would be a huge challenge and would require short-notice inspection visits to military sites.

One reason for skepticism is that nobody has ever made money betting on North Korean moderation or denuclearization. And a summit raises the stakes, so a failure could trigger angry new escalations on each side, leaving us worse off than where we were when we started.

Perhaps I’m wrong: A “North Korea expert” is an oxymoron, and traditional diplomacy in the past certainly hasn’t succeeded. For all the uncertainties, we do have a two-month reprieve from the threat of nuclear war.

One can now envision a path forward for the U.S. and North Korea — even if it means we also worry that the path dead ends at a precipice. At least for the time being, we can look forward to talks instead of tanks.

Writes for The New York Times.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: Is Senate committee equipped to grasp Kavanaugh allegations?

For all their well-learned politesse, the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have scarcely been able to conceal their determination to get Christine Blasey Ford out of their hair. Ford is the last obstacle to confirming conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. And she’s a formidable one. She has alleged...
Opinion: The burden of proof for Kavanaugh

Last week, I wrote a column taking the view that conservatives supporting Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court because they hope he will overturn Roe v. Wade should be willing to encourage his withdrawal if his accuser testifies credibly against him and the cloud over his nomination can’t be expeditiously cleared up. Even if...
Opinion: What the Times misses about poverty

It’s an affecting story. Matthew Desmond, writing in The New York Times Magazine, profiles Vanessa Solivan, a poor single mother raising three children. Vanessa works as a home health aide, yet she and her three adolescent children are often reduced to sleeping in her car, a 2004 Chrysler Pacifica. In the morning, she takes her two daughters...
Opinion: Days of fear, years of obstruction

Lehman Bros. failed 10 years ago. The U.S. economy was already in a recession, but Lehman’s fall and the chaos that followed sent it off a cliff: Six and a half million jobs would be lost during the next year. We didn’t experience a full replay of the Great Depression, and some have argued that the system worked, in the sense that policymakers...
Opinion: Welcome moves toward transparency
Opinion: Welcome moves toward transparency

Stephen Deere, a new Atlanta city government reporter for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, joined the paper last October. He put in his first open records request with the city even before his first day on the job. He requested legal invoices, settlements and an expenditure database. And despite the law that says most open records should be produced...
More Stories