No, Trump’s North Korea Diplomacy Is Still Not Working

Xinhua via ZUMA

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

At the Washington Post today, Simon Denyer reports that at least a few North Korea experts are warming up to President Trump’s approach:

At Stanford, Hecker, Carlin and researcher Elliot Serbin have been charting the degree of risk on the Korean Peninsula since 1992, using a range of indicators ranging from diplomacy to various aspects of North Korea’s nuclear and missile program. On their color-coded chart, bright green is the safest classification, bright red the riskiest.

When Barack Obama took office, the boxes were a mixture of pinks and light reds. By the time he left office, eight out of 11 boxes were bright red, with North Korea testing missiles and bombs.

By 2017 — with Trump’s bombastically calling Kim “Little Rocket Man” — nine boxes were bright red. “The risk of war was high,” Hecker said.

Since then, though, the diplomacy box has shifted to green. With North Korea suspending nuclear and missile tests, other boxes have returned to a more reassuring mid-red or pink.

I suspect that lots of people privately hold this view but won’t admit it. It’s the reason that so much of the analysis before the Trump-Kim summit in Singapore was fairly tepid: a lot of people were afraid to flat out say that Trump’s approach was dumb until the summit was well over and had produced nothing. After all, it was so crazy it might have worked, right? Kim is certainly susceptible to flattery, and who knows more about ego stroking than Donald Trump?

The second-round summit in Vietnam is getting less attention in general than the first, but apparently there are now a few more people who are willing to defend Trump’s methods out loud. And who knows? Maybe they’re onto something. But there’s a huge caveat: as near as I can tell, nobody believes that North Korea will give up its nukes no matter what Trump offers.

In other words, Trump’s approach might work, but only if “work” means accepting North Korea as a nuclear state and then moving forward from there. This is a deal that my cats probably could have negotiated, and I hardly understand why it required a long bromance between Trump and Kim to get there. It’s a nothingburger. Wake me up if Trump negotiates something that’s actually difficult.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend