President Trump's tenure can be described in two words, "unconventional," and "unprecedented." In the view of his critics, including this scribe, his disastrous domestic policies and myopic foreign policy stances are too numerous to summarize here.
Especially irresponsible and dangerous was his baiting of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, dismissing him as "Little Rocket Man" and threatening North Korea with fire and fury. Trump publicly chastised his recently-sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, "talking is a waste of time."
Responsible critics urged Trump to tamp down his dangerous rhetoric. While there was loose talk about an all-out American strike, or a "bloody nose" strike to "teach a lesson" to North Korea, responsible advisors, including Secretary of Defense James Mattis, urged diplomacy.
So, whaddaya know - in a sharp reversal of tough-talking rhetoric, Trump shocks the media, political and foreign policy worlds by accepting an invitation to talk directly with the North Korean leader. For this, Trump is criticized for both the substance - "it's unprecedented for an American president to agree to such a thing" - and the process- "he should have consulted with allies and foreign policy professionals before such an agreement."
Critics lament that such an agreement is a "gift" to the world's pariah, for which we get nothing in return. There is much ado about the "risks" of such talks, and what if these talks fail?
The same critics who urged Trump to calm down ought to themselves calm down. One can question Trump's "off the cuff" decision. But the risks of talking should be weighed against the risks of not talking, and Trump's totally irresponsible previous rhetoric, not to mention super-hawk John Bolton's irresponsible, dangerous urging of a "bloody nose" strike against North Korea.
Trump's conciliatory tone, for whatever his motivation, should be welcomed by all, including by his critics. All effort should be devoted to make these talks successful. That includes not setting the bar so high that the talks are preordained to failure.
Recent Korean policy centered on the U.S., China, Japan and Russia, with South Korea having the most to lose, almost an afterthought. Whenever South Koreans have so much as mentioned negotiation with North Korea, it was slapped down by the U.S. and Japan. It's as if the reason for hostility between the U.S. and North Korea, namely defense of South Korea, was lost. The point is that if relations between the two Koreas improve, and North Korea's threat to invade South Korea diminishes, the reason for North Korea and the U.S. to attack each other also diminishes.
Secretary of Defense Mattis, who made his reputation commanding Marines in combat, reminds us that a war on the Korean peninsula would bring forth death and devastation unlike anything we have seen. Apart from nuclear weapons, every square yard of South Korea's capital, Seoul, is zeroed in by North Korean artillery. As such, South Korea has the most to lose from war and the most to gain from peace on the Korean Peninsula. It is logical that South Korean president Moon Jae-in is largely responsible for urging better relations that included welcoming North Korea to the recent Olympics.
Among those most qualified to weigh in on Trump's decision is former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. He is a former ambassador to the UN and has traveled to North Korea eight times in negotiating release of Americans held prisoner and recovering the remains of Americans killed in the Korean War.
Richardson admits to being "flabbergasted" by Trump's announcement. But he believes it was the right decision to accept the meeting. His major fear is that because of Trump's style, his tendency to "shoot from the hip" and not rely on advice, he will be ill-prepared. Richardson is also concerned about the absence of Korea professionals in the State Department and Asian expertise in the diplomatic corps. In other words, Trump needs to be well-prepped, listen to advice and rely on experienced diplomats.
Nevertheless, Richardson believes the risk worth taking because, "One, any reduction of tension in the Korean Peninsula is good. And I've never seen the state of tension and relationships among the parties there as bad as it is now. And secondly, I believe it's important to take advantage of Kim Jong-un's outreach, for whatever reason he's doing it."
It is now doubly important that Trump honor the Iran nuclear deal as evidence of America's good faith.
Trump holds that his tough talk produced Kim's outreach. While Richardson agrees that Kim is feeling the effect of sanctions, he believes that Kim is doing it to "keep his power," and now that he has achieved military strength, he can negotiate with the US.
So what about this line that such talks render an "undeserved gift" to Kim that other presidents refused to confer? Let's face facts. Whether we like him or not, Kim's family has controlled North Korea since 1945. Standard diplomatic procedure normally starts at a lower level. Trump reversed the process, but we should credit him with an attempt at diplomacy, however unconventional.
Critics of Trump's decision have quibbled over ill-defined "objectives" of the talks. Life and foreign policy are complicated enough without making it unnecessarily so. The overall objective is, or should be, peace on the Korean peninsula.
"Success" should not be defined as total denuclearization by North Korea. While that would be ideal, it's not likely to happen - any more than Americans would agree to total withdrawal of troops from South Korea.
A verifiable North Korean freeze on nuclear development and agreement not to dispense nuclear technology to rogue regimes would signify welcome progress.
Even agreeing to further talks should be considered "successful" and an initial step toward maintaining a peaceful peninsula.
It's a lot to hope for, but we should credit Trump if these talks are even modestly successful.
Let's save our harshest criticism for Trump for where he really deserves it.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in the Monroe Times.
Especially irresponsible and dangerous was his baiting of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, dismissing him as "Little Rocket Man" and threatening North Korea with fire and fury. Trump publicly chastised his recently-sacked Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, "talking is a waste of time."
Responsible critics urged Trump to tamp down his dangerous rhetoric. While there was loose talk about an all-out American strike, or a "bloody nose" strike to "teach a lesson" to North Korea, responsible advisors, including Secretary of Defense James Mattis, urged diplomacy.
So, whaddaya know - in a sharp reversal of tough-talking rhetoric, Trump shocks the media, political and foreign policy worlds by accepting an invitation to talk directly with the North Korean leader. For this, Trump is criticized for both the substance - "it's unprecedented for an American president to agree to such a thing" - and the process- "he should have consulted with allies and foreign policy professionals before such an agreement."
Critics lament that such an agreement is a "gift" to the world's pariah, for which we get nothing in return. There is much ado about the "risks" of such talks, and what if these talks fail?
The same critics who urged Trump to calm down ought to themselves calm down. One can question Trump's "off the cuff" decision. But the risks of talking should be weighed against the risks of not talking, and Trump's totally irresponsible previous rhetoric, not to mention super-hawk John Bolton's irresponsible, dangerous urging of a "bloody nose" strike against North Korea.
Trump's conciliatory tone, for whatever his motivation, should be welcomed by all, including by his critics. All effort should be devoted to make these talks successful. That includes not setting the bar so high that the talks are preordained to failure.
Recent Korean policy centered on the U.S., China, Japan and Russia, with South Korea having the most to lose, almost an afterthought. Whenever South Koreans have so much as mentioned negotiation with North Korea, it was slapped down by the U.S. and Japan. It's as if the reason for hostility between the U.S. and North Korea, namely defense of South Korea, was lost. The point is that if relations between the two Koreas improve, and North Korea's threat to invade South Korea diminishes, the reason for North Korea and the U.S. to attack each other also diminishes.
Secretary of Defense Mattis, who made his reputation commanding Marines in combat, reminds us that a war on the Korean peninsula would bring forth death and devastation unlike anything we have seen. Apart from nuclear weapons, every square yard of South Korea's capital, Seoul, is zeroed in by North Korean artillery. As such, South Korea has the most to lose from war and the most to gain from peace on the Korean Peninsula. It is logical that South Korean president Moon Jae-in is largely responsible for urging better relations that included welcoming North Korea to the recent Olympics.
Among those most qualified to weigh in on Trump's decision is former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. He is a former ambassador to the UN and has traveled to North Korea eight times in negotiating release of Americans held prisoner and recovering the remains of Americans killed in the Korean War.
Richardson admits to being "flabbergasted" by Trump's announcement. But he believes it was the right decision to accept the meeting. His major fear is that because of Trump's style, his tendency to "shoot from the hip" and not rely on advice, he will be ill-prepared. Richardson is also concerned about the absence of Korea professionals in the State Department and Asian expertise in the diplomatic corps. In other words, Trump needs to be well-prepped, listen to advice and rely on experienced diplomats.
Nevertheless, Richardson believes the risk worth taking because, "One, any reduction of tension in the Korean Peninsula is good. And I've never seen the state of tension and relationships among the parties there as bad as it is now. And secondly, I believe it's important to take advantage of Kim Jong-un's outreach, for whatever reason he's doing it."
It is now doubly important that Trump honor the Iran nuclear deal as evidence of America's good faith.
Trump holds that his tough talk produced Kim's outreach. While Richardson agrees that Kim is feeling the effect of sanctions, he believes that Kim is doing it to "keep his power," and now that he has achieved military strength, he can negotiate with the US.
So what about this line that such talks render an "undeserved gift" to Kim that other presidents refused to confer? Let's face facts. Whether we like him or not, Kim's family has controlled North Korea since 1945. Standard diplomatic procedure normally starts at a lower level. Trump reversed the process, but we should credit him with an attempt at diplomacy, however unconventional.
Critics of Trump's decision have quibbled over ill-defined "objectives" of the talks. Life and foreign policy are complicated enough without making it unnecessarily so. The overall objective is, or should be, peace on the Korean peninsula.
"Success" should not be defined as total denuclearization by North Korea. While that would be ideal, it's not likely to happen - any more than Americans would agree to total withdrawal of troops from South Korea.
A verifiable North Korean freeze on nuclear development and agreement not to dispense nuclear technology to rogue regimes would signify welcome progress.
Even agreeing to further talks should be considered "successful" and an initial step toward maintaining a peaceful peninsula.
It's a lot to hope for, but we should credit Trump if these talks are even modestly successful.
Let's save our harshest criticism for Trump for where he really deserves it.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in the Monroe Times.
