Donald Trump’s diplomatic turn to N Korea deserves acclaim
In ditching decades of policy, the US president has chosen the wiser path
Nicholas Burns
Donald Trump will need to be uncharacteristically deliberate and serious in preparing for his summit with Kim Jong Un © AFP
Donald Trump is right about North Korea, of course. It never made sense for the US to launch a “bloody nose” military strike against Kim Jong Un’s isolated country without having tried diplomacy first.
America and North Korea were on a collision course to war. A unilateral US attack, which had been considered seriously in Washington for months, would have brought with it incalculable risks. The powerful North Korean military would probably have struck back. China might have intervened to defend its border, producing a potential stand-off between Beijing and Washington. US military leaders predicted such a clash would cause tens of thousands of casualties in both South and North Korea. It could have been catastrophic for Mr Trump to choose war before talks on a bitterly divided Korean peninsula.
Sitting US presidents and North Korean leaders have not spoken in seven decades. The only American known to have met Mr Kim is the retired basketball star Dennis Rodman, an athlete of considerable merit but decidedly not the person to negotiate the future of a nuclear crisis. However abruptly Mr Trump has cast aside decades of American policy and his own opposition to talks, he has chosen the wiser path for his country and the world. Better he meet Mr Kim in an extraordinary summit than march off blindly to war.
Still, the devil for Mr Trump will be in the detail. As he contemplates what could be the greatest challenge of his presidency, there is much to give him pause. He must first recognise Mr Kim’s strong position. North Korea has a considerable nuclear arsenal and has made impressive progress in missile tests. Mr Kim will negotiate but continue working behind the scenes to achieve his goal of an intercontinental nuclear missile that can reach any target in America.
Mr Trump should also realise that the North Korean leader has no intention of trading his nuclear programme for peace. Mr Kim considers his nuclear force as the ultimate guarantor of his regime’s security. Even if Mr Trump could convince him to denuclearise, verifying compliance would be difficult. Could Mr Kim be trusted to keep his word? His father forged but violated agreements with previous US presidents Bill Clinton and George W Bush. Mr Kim seeks legitimacy from the talks and ultimately world recognition as a nuclear power.
The US president’s second challenge is to prepare for his daunting summit with a very thin bench of Korea and east Asia experts in Washington. This is a problem of his own making. He has yet to appoint a US ambassador to Seoul or an assistant secretary of state for east Asia. His draconian budget cuts at the Department of State and open disregard for diplomacy have produced an alarming exodus of senior career diplomats.
To counter Mr Kim’s strengths, Mr Trump needs to commit himself to an aggressive diplomatic campaign. He should consider delaying the meeting until he has orchestrated a coalition with South Korea, Japan and China to intimidate Mr Kim. Global sanctions against Pyongyang must remain. China’s president Xi Jinping should be asked to warn Mr Kim of the risk of a diplomatic failure. Mr Trump needs to cancel steel and aluminium sanctions against his most vital ally in the talks — South Korea. Rex Tillerson, secretary of state, should conduct preliminary discussions to confirm Mr Kim’s seriousness. What Mr Trump does now to strengthen his position may be as important as what happens at the talks themselves.
The US president’s surprising turn to diplomacy is a gamble. He will need to be uncharacteristically deliberate and serious in preparing for the summit. The probability of success is not high. In choosing a diplomatic path, however, Mr Trump keeps alive the prospect that discussions with Mr Kim might yet prevent a major conflagration in Asia. That alone will make these talks worthwhile.
The writer is a professor at Harvard and former under US secretary of state and ambassador to Nato
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario