Evidently, I'm on a bit of an island here, with most saying Trump meeting with Kim is a bad idea. I think talking is a good idea. Here's why: 2/x
-
-
Show this thread
-
Some conservative commentators I respect (
@RadioFreeTom@NoahCRothman et al) argue Trump meeting Kim is a bad idea because it rewards North Korea for bad behavior, gives Kim the legitimacy he craves, and the US didn't get enough preconditions to justify meeting. 3/xShow this thread -
However... 1) North Korea agreed to suspend missile and nuclear testing while talks go on. Considering they conducted one hydrogen-boosted nuclear weapon test and 16 ballistic missile tests in 2017--all of which US condemned--a testing freeze is a concession in advance. 4/x
Show this thread -
2) Yes, Kim wants the prestige of meeting directly with a US president but what does he actually gain? Some propaganda videos for domestic consumption? Sure, but his power's already absolute. International acceptance? Hardly. Not unless there's a breakthrough deal. 5/x
Show this thread -
The other big criticism, mostly from the left, is that Trump's bound to screw it up. Maybe Kim'll flatter him and he'll give away the store. Can't totally rule that out. But Trump's POTUS. We can't put foreign policy on hold for 3 years. Not with NK's capabilities advancing. 6/x
Show this thread -
Yes, previous agreements with North Korea haven't led to success. But holding negotiations doesn't mean one has to accept any deal. If nothing good is on the table, walk away. 7/x
Show this thread -
Refusing to talk declares in advance that no deal is possible. Then what's the strategy? War? Incredibly costly. Sanctions until North Korea capitulates? No chance. 8/x
Show this thread -
NO ONE CAPITULATES At least not without losing a major war (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan). Thinking that pressure would lead to capitulation is how Saudis etc screwed up Qatar crisis. It's why pre-Iraq War demands didn't work. It's the primary mistake of Iran deal opponents. 9/x
Show this thread -
Pressure leads to negotiations, not capitulation. Forces countries to the table. But if we won't talk to North Korea even after they suspend testing in advance, what's the point of pressure? 10/x
Show this thread -
Another criticism: negotiating shows that North Korea's path brings legitimacy. Hardly. Who would look at North Korea's experience over the last few decades and think it looks appealing? Besides, NK has nukes. And now ICBMs. Pretending otherwise gets us nowhere. 11/x
Show this thread -
Circumstances have changed. North Korea has a demonstrated nuclear capability. And Trump has unsettled North Korea, South Korea, China, and others with his "madman theory" bluster. As I wrote in this article, it's time for out-of-the-box thinking. https://arcdigital.media/three-out-of-the-box-options-for-north-korea-a73975561b02 … 12/x
Show this thread -
I know many disagree. But if you think the US should reject talks, you need to come up with a plan that will successfully deescalate the situation on the Korean peninsula without the United States negotiating with Kim Jong-un's regime. I say it's worth the gamble. (END)
Show this thread -
You say this as if... 1) Meeting with POTUS is a huge deal. Not nothing, but they meet tons of people. 2) North Korea's path looks desirable to others. Endure decades of isolating sanctions and poverty, scratch together a nuke, and all you get is a meetinghttps://twitter.com/jpodhoretz/status/971902061141987330 …
Show this thread -
Here's another one.
@MaxBoot says "Kim will be able to tell his people that the American president is kowtowing to him because he is scared of North Korea’s mighty nuclear arsenal." But he already tells his people stuff like that. And they believe it, because they're so isolated.Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think my main concern is TRUMP shouldn’t be the one to handle any delicate situations
-
I share the general concerns about the president. But we can't put foreign policy on hold for three years.
-
That is truly absurd. Saying an insane moron such as Trump should not be speaking to an insane dictator with nukes is not putting "foreign policy on old for three years." You are exaggerating to a truly ridiculous degree.
-
Then what is it? Either POTUS conducts foreign policy or he doesn't If you think no POTUS should ever talk to North Korea, that's one thing (I disagree). But if you think other presidents should talk but this one shouldn't, then you're arguing foreign policy should be put on hold
-
Which part of TRUMP should not speak to him are you missing? You are aware that presidents have people who work for them who do diplomacy for a living, yes?
-
Meaning send an envoy? I can see the merit in that argument. But that's different than the main talk/don't talk discussion. If you think it's a good idea to conduct high level talks, but not with the president personally involved, say so.
-
I feel exactly that
-
When you said "shouldn't be the one to handle" I thought you meant entirely uninvolved. There's no way to do that. POTUS runs foreign policy (for better or worse). But yes, having experienced aides, translators, a chief negotiator (Victor Cha?) would be beneficial.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.