Ending North Korea’s nuclear program: What now?

President Trump’s domestic troubles could endanger – or perhaps impel – a deal with North Korea’s Kim.  The benefits for both sides remain in place.

Reuters
South Korean National Security Director Chung Eui-yong (left) meets with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang, North Korea, Sept. 5.

Domestic politics now looms large over a White House foreign-policy endeavor that stands a chance of becoming a big step forward for world peace and stability.

Negotiations between the United States and North Korea aimed at the denuclearization of the reclusive and repressive Asian nation have dragged on without much to show for them since a historic June 12 meeting in Singapore between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. In a sweeping statement immediately after that summit Mr. Trump tweeted: “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.”

Nearly everyone, perhaps even Trump himself, knows he was overstating what had happened. But seen as stating an aspiration, not a fact, it clearly put forward the result the US was seeking.

The summit has yielded a tangible result: Unquestionably US-North Korean tensions, and the threat of a nuclear missile launch, have been lower over the summer. 

But patience on both sides seems to be wearing thin. Any substantial progress toward denuclearization seems stalled. The president recently asked Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to make a planned visit to North Korea, citing the lack of forward momentum in talks.

Whatever personal rapport Trump has built with Mr. Kim seems intact. This week, through a South Korean diplomat, Kim said that his faith in Trump was “unchanged,” and he set the first real deadline for negotiations to be completed: before the end of Trump’s first term of office in early 2021. Trump tweeted in response: “Thank you to Chairman Kim. We will get it done together!” 

But this week also saw two damaging domestic events for the Trump administration: the publication of a new book (“Fear: Trump in the White House”) about the apparently troubled inner workings of the White House by investigative reporter Bob Woodward, and an unflattering assessment of Trump’s performance in office by an unidentified senior official, published as an opinion piece in The New York Times.

Will Kim now see Trump as a weakened and unreliable partner, perhaps not reelectable in 2020, or possibly forced to leave even earlier? Or has Kim’s new deadline recognized that he has a willing counterpart in Washington now and should make a deal before another president arrives who may take a different approach?

Both Trump and Kim have shown a willingness to play a cat-and-mouse game, alternating friendly personal overtures with tough talk, often through surrogates. But both leaders (and both countries) would seem to have much to gain from better relations.

Trump has halted joint US-South Korean military exercises as a goodwill gesture. Kim has stopped his nuclear tests and provocative missile firings. 

Some kind of formal agreement that would officially end the Korean War (only a cease-fire has existed for more than 60 years) could be a further US concession. But would the North then argue that US troops have no reason to be stationed on South Korean soil?

A meeting Sept. 18-20 between Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, their third since April, will serve as another opportunity for dialogue with the North. The South is both a close US ally and has its own large stake in the outcome, making it an essential partner in any agreement.

It may take more than words to move negotiations forward. Reinstating sanctions that limit North Korea’s oil imports, for example, could create new urgency on Kim’s part to cut a real deal to end its nuclear weapons program in exchange for more normal relations with the US and the world.

Negotiation is always preferable to conflict. Patient, persistent talk can yield real results. But sometimes firm actions can prod vital negotiations along.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Ending North Korea’s nuclear program: What now?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2018/0906/Ending-North-Korea-s-nuclear-program-What-now
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe