Meeting with Kim Jong Un

The world was shocked two weeks ago when news broke that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un had used South Korean diplomats to extend an offer to meet directly with President Trump. The terms he offered were a discussion of denuclearization in exchange for a security guarantee from the United States toward the North Korean government. Even more surprisingly, the president accepted.

Since, administration officials have walked back Trump's acceptance somewhat, saying the administration wants to see proof of North Korean willingness to actually dismantle their nuclear capability before having the meeting. At the moment it is unclear when, if ever, the meeting will actually occur.

The reaction to Trump's decision has ranged from skepticism to scorn. Few people of whom I am aware seem to think that this sort of meeting is a good idea. Given Trump's track record in office to date, I think concern over his personally negotiating delicate international issues is warranted. But the criticism I've seen, or at least most of it, has not been of Trump personally negotiating with the North Koreans, but of the concept of negotiating with them at all. It is that rarest of issues - one on which the security establishment and Rachel Maddow agree. I also think their view is deeply flawed.

As things stand, North Korea is a nuclear power. It is a nuclear power that is purposefully developing the missile technology necessary to hit the United States. The North Korean government insists that such an armament is meant to act as a deterrent. It is nearly 70 years since the Korean War began and the US still has nearly 40,000 soldiers based in South Korea, with a slightly larger number nearby in Japan. The potential for renewed active conflict has always been uncomfortably present.

The North Korean nuclear project was intended by them as a guarantee against US power both as an implied threat and as a potential bargaining chip in negotiations. While they have possessed nuclear weapons for some time, it is only in recent years that their missile technology has progressed to the point that a North Korean nuclear weapon could plausibly reach the United States.

That Kim has chosen this moment to reach out suggests to me that the North Korean leadership realizes that its moment of maximum leverage is approaching. If the US government maintains its position that North Korea having the capability to strike the United States is unacceptable, then Kim should be able to trade denuclearization for lifting of sanctions and international guarantees against military action toward North Korea.

That establishment opinion in this country is so utterly against that sort of negotiation is reflective of the degree to which we have gotten caught up in the "us vs them" aspect of the disagreement. It is the same mentality that drove the opposition to a similar - and thus far successful - negotiation with Iran. Any deal that gives "them" anything they want is branded as a shameful capitulation. It is implied in this line of argument that not only is the United States entitled to achieve its preferred outcome, but that the use of force would be justified to achieve it.

The correct policy in cases like this, where nuclear proliferation is a serious concern for local US allies, is to engage in a vigilant but good-faith negotiation that ultimately accepts such concessions as are necessary to achieve the objective. Doing so is not weakness, it is a pragmatic commitment to fulfilling our obligations to our allies without destruction or slaughter.

We appear to have "learned" the lesson of World War II to an extent far beyond its usefulness. How frequently is the argument used in our public discourse that we shouldn't appease hostile actors? Yet how often do we question whether our geopolitical adversaries merit the comparison? It is an argument that, if accepted, would justify almost any aggressor in history. Ironically, Hitler himself applied this very logic to the unprincipled pillaging of Germany by the victors of the First World War in order to justify his waging of the second.

The kind of thinking that rushes to military options and ridicules negotiation has burned us already since 9/11. We were told many times that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq was collaborating with terrorists and providing weapons of mass destruction. We were told that sanctions and negotiations couldn't possibly solve the problem and the only solution was military. We later found that the "intelligence" used to justify the invasion of Iraq was exaggerated for the explicit purpose of preparing the public for war. We were told we had to invade Afghanistan because bin Laden was based there, yet 17 years later  we maintain a military presence in that country in spite of the fact that we killed bin Laden 6 years ago in another country altogether.

We have fallen too easily and too completely into a line of thought that assumes that our most serious international disputes can only be solved by the military. We are correspondingly over-eager to employ it. Criticism of negotiation as weak feeds this narrative, whether a Democrat or a Republican is the one being criticised. It may be easy to ridicule Donald Trump - and easier still to ridicule him meeting with Kim Jong Un - but those of us opposed to the president and his policies ought to take greater care that in opposing him we do not stake out positions that feed into harmful narratives.