A Conversation with North Korea

               A Conversation with North Korea

      Like most of the planet on Monday, I watched the televised hoopla surrounding the meeting of U.S. President Donald Trump and Korean dictator Kim Jong Un in Singapore. Both men appeared affable enough in their greetings. Was it only a few months ago that these two flamboyant leaders were hurling insults at one another and threatening the world with nuclear conflagration? Such is the politics of world relations, I suppose. It is equal parts of Kabuki theater and liar’s poker. Teddy Roosevelts dictum in foreign policy ( “speak softly but carry a big stick” ) has always been foremost in America’s approach to conflicts. And we have a pretty big stick to carry too.

      I don’t think all that much of substance got accomplished, but at least both nations are at the talking stage and not the rocket launching phase of our relationship. That is progress of a sort. Given what we know about both men, I doubt either trusts the other very much. But then, would talking to Vladimir Putin or any of a bevy of other world monsters be any different?

       Diplomacy if a process of sorts. First you have to start talking even if both sides think the other one is full of baloney. Then, gradually, negotiators have to start looking for whatever threads of common ground might exist upon which to start the basis of a relationship. This might seem difficult, with regards to North Korea. But, then who could have imagined sixty years ago, amidst the war-torn rubble of the world, that Germany and Japan would end up becoming close allies of the United States?

      The television commentators had a field day offering observations on the short comings of the process and the apparent lack of concrete results. But, at least we are at the talking stage, aren’t we? As a practical matter, no one expects North Korea to give up her nuclear arms program. Kim is already looking over his shoulder, in North Korea, at agents of “regime change.” For that matter, so is Donald Trump. But then we have to remember the lengthy process of the SALT (strategic arms limitation talks) of the sixties and seventies. In the end, the world did reduce its stock of nuclear bombs. At the time, no one trusted the Russians to move an inch. And their history of human rights abuses is much more horrific than that of the North Koreans.

       I guess the lesson here is that amity among nations begins with talking. Where, or if, the process goes any further is open to debate and subject to the winsome vagaries of an uncertain future. And whether we like the personalities involved is irrelevant. Seoul, Korea lies 27 miles from the border of North Korea. Some thirty thousand U.S military stand guard there, as they have for sixty-five years. Both groups are at risk should an unstable North Korea follow the pattern of the previous dictator and pour across the border in a sudden attack like that of 1950. It triggered a Chinese involvement and cost the lives of many thousands of soldiers, on both sides.

      The real players in this scenario, then as now, in addition to ourselves, are the Chinese and the Russians. What do those autocrats think and how will they react to any future confrontations? There are still multiple friction points on the globe. The Spratley Islands, in the South China Sea, Syria, Kaliningrad and developing Africa all must figure into the continuing conversation. These are the realities of nuclear chess amongst nations. It is when everyone stops talking that the missiles and guns get rolled out.  I guess a conversation between all of the players is a good start. Let’s see where it goes.

                                     -30-

                                  (634 words)

                         Joseph Xavier Martin