This is a tough one. North Korea is a hostile, socialist, arguably Stalinist country, known for their numerous violations of human rights. They boast of a military nuclear weapons program and have a significant quantity of chemical and biological weapons. They are no longer a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a pact made to prevent the spread of such weapons and its technology. Those weapons and technology are dangerous in the hands of a hostile nation.<\/p>\n
So what do we do? How do you solve a problem like (North) Korea?<\/p>\n
For decades, presidents have attempted to find an effective strategy with this growing threat \u2014 and for decades, there has seemed minimal, significant, positive movement. In fact, with each considered an incredibly provocative threat, North Korea has now conducted six nuclear tests \u2014 in 2006, 2009, 2013 (2x), 2016, and 2017 \u2014 under presidents Bush 43, Obama, and Trump. They and the presidents before them have been united in their sobering concern.<\/p>\n
Shockingly\u2026 fascinatingly\u2026 eerily \u2014 whatever the right word is \u2014 there now exists at least the possibility<\/i> of progress. After years of trying to find the right approach \u2014 from Pres. Clinton saying he would prevent the country from developing a nuclear arsenal \u201ceven at the risk of war\u201d<\/i> to Bush 43\u2019s positioning on the infamous \u201cAxis of Evil\u201d to Obama\u2019s policy of “strategic patience” \u2014 only now has there seemed at least the possibility<\/i> of progress. This comes amid Pres. Trump\u2019s approach of \u201cmaximum pressure,\u201d a policy bookended by a series of both questionable and sometimes, in my opinion, even queasy quotes.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Kim Jong-un, the Supreme Leader of North Korea, and Trump have each exchanged their share of insults. Now, however, Kim and Trump are set to sit down together soon \u2014 this month or next. This will be the first time a sitting U.S. President will have met the leader of North Korea since the Korean War. This is significant.<\/i><\/p>\n There exists a deep, deep challenge here, friends. Yes, this is significant, and yes, there exists only the possibility<\/i> of progress. And in all candor, the war of words between Kim and Trump has seemingly, only caused concern by the watching world to increase. With no recent president able to permanently diffuse the growing threat, it is difficult for arguably most to imagine that Pres. Trump, with his tweets and unconventional approach, will be effective. Even more so, the question exists in the minds of many: will Trump do more damage than good? What if he makes the situation worse?<\/p>\n Once again, I find myself observing from a limited vantage point. Also, I find it incredibly difficult to find an unbiased perspective. As noted recently, when news was breaking that Kim and Trump would meet, when tuning into CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC, each had a completely different approach. Each was laced with bias.<\/p>\n I found some words this week that resonated with me, as I crave positive change but unsure if such can be delivered via the current \u2014 or any<\/i> \u2014 administration. From Jeff Greenfield of Politico: \u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n \u201c\u2026 In the wake of the head-snapping developments on the Korean Peninsula\u2014North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in shaking hands across the 38th parallel, talk of a formal end to the war 68 years after the armistice, a meeting between Kim and Trump\u2014voices far removed from the circle of Trump admirers, such as former acting CIA Director Michael Morrell, and diplomatic correspondents for the New York Times and the Washington Post, have offered the president measured praise. One of the president\u2019s toughest critics, Rep. Adam Schiff, offered this backhanded compliment: \u2018I think it\u2019s more than fair to say that the combination of the president\u2019s unpredictability and, indeed, his bellicosity had something to do with the North Koreans deciding to come to the table.\u2019<\/i><\/p>\n Yes, it\u2019s probably too early to sound the trumpets; yes, there is a history of North Korea playing Lucy with the football while the U.S., as Charlie Brown, whiffs badly. Yes, some will argue that Trump has already given Kim what he and his forebears have always wanted\u2014the respect due a nuclear power\u2014without North Korea having to put anything tangible on the table. But when you measure where we are now from where we were just several months ago\u2014Trump threatening \u2018fire and fury\u2019 last August, belittling Kim as \u2018Little Rocket Man\u2019 in September as North Korea fired missiles into the Pacific, fears of war at a near-fever pitch\u2014we are clearly in a better place. And it is at least plausible that the president\u2019s words and deeds mattered\u2026<\/i><\/p>\n It\u2019s not hard to see why the President\u2019s most zealous critics see him as they do\u2026<\/i><\/p>\n But that feeling is all the more reason to retain a sense of perspective; to be able to consider seriously the proposition that this misbegotten president has somehow achieved an honest-to-God diplomatic success. After all, it won\u2019t be long before he provides a whole new set of reasons to mourn the fact of his ascendance. If the possibility of a peaceful Korea becomes reality, let\u2019s just let him have this one triumph.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n Wanting to hope\u2026 wanting North Korea to no longer be hostile\u2026 to no longer be capable of nuclear armament\u2026 regardless of who is President.<\/p>\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is a tough one. North Korea is a hostile, socialist, arguably Stalinist country, known for their numerous violations of human rights. They boast of a military nuclear weapons program and have a significant quantity of chemical and biological weapons. They are no longer a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, … <\/p>\n