It isn’t wrong to negotiate with tyrants and terrorists. It is wrong to prop them up with money and weapons, but it isn’t wrong to negotiate with them when the alternative is mutually destructive war.
But if you have no plan to get rid of them or if there’s no assurance that their successors will be any better than they are, then sooner or later you have to deal.
President Nixon negotiated with Mao Zedong and ended the Cold War with China. President Reagan negotiated with Mikhail Gorbachev and ended the Cold War with the USSR.
President Trump’s willingness to negotiate with Kim Jong-un is a good thing, not a bad thing. I think the odds are against success, but you never know.
The reason I think the odds are against success is that the U.S. goal is for North Korea to give up nuclear weapons, and, if I were Kim, I never would agree to that.
Kim in the past has said his government would never give up nuclear weapons so long as the United States refused to sign a peace treaty ending the Korean Conflict of 1950-1953 or to guarantee it would not attack North Korea.
The implication is that if a peace treaty was signed, and if the U.S. government renounced the use of force against North Korea, Kim would consider giving up nuclear weapons.
But without nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, there is no way North Korea can deter an attack by the United States, except maybe by the threat of a massive attack with conventional weapons on Seoul, which is just across the border.
Would negotiations with the United States even by on the table if North Korea didn’t already have nuclear weapons?
President Trump is talking about renouncing the U.S. nuclear weapons agreement with Iran. How could Kim be sure he wouldn’t renounce an agreement with North Korea?
Maybe Kim would agree to give up nuclear weapons in return for a guarantee against attack by China and/or Russia. Is this something the U.S. government would want?