TO EVERYONE ARGUING TRUMP SHOULDN'T TALK TO NORTH KOREA: If getting Kim to the table isn't the point of sanctions, and war's a bad idea, what's the strategy? No one capitulates. Ever. But sometimes in talks they give something to get something. If there's no good deal, walk away.
-
-
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 honestly wish Trump well here, but I don't think he knows what he's walking into. I can't see any circumstance where NK completely gives up their nukes. Best case: Kim agrees to limit his nuclear arsenal in exchange for sanctions relief. I'm unconvinced Trump knows this.
-
I was trying to compare this to Nixon/China & Reagan/USSR. We'd already become resigned to their being nuclear powers at that time.
-
Perhaps that's necessary here. North Korea has demonstrated the capability. Pretending they don't have it, or that they'll give it up if we just sanction them a bit more, doesn't get us anywhere.
-
I'd call a freeze on further nuke building & research a significant development. KJU will want a LOT in return. Then, we have to agree on how we do inspections to verify NK is abiding by terms. Of course, we had an agreement w. NK in 1994. It failed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It would be a good idea if they hadn't pulled this trick several times before. But they have. With Bush, Clinton and Obama. But none of those three were dumb enough to give them a Presidential-level summit. They just got a major concession for nothing.
-
They will agree to some BS, get restocked with grain and fuel, and then a year or so later it will be found out that they haven't honored the agreement. This has happened over and over.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's a bad idea because trump will be trump. He can't speak in coherent sentences and when he does, we all know it's a lie.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.