RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-troops-for-nukes-trade-1529264016

President Trump sowed confusion in Asia last week when he called U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises “very provocative.” He suspended them until further notice and mused that he’d eventually like to bring all U.S. troops in Korea home. North Korea, Russia and China were pleased—American allies not so much.

“We will be stopping the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money,” Mr. Trump said in Singapore, but which exercises does he mean? Vice President Mike Pence met with GOP Senators last week and suggested that Mr. Trump meant two annual combined exercises, the Ulchi Freedom Guardian in August and the Foal Eagle in late winter or early spring. But the Pentagon hasn’t confirmed that, and U.S. allies were caught off guard.

Mr. Pence’s spokeswoman later said regular training exercises and exchanges would continue, which is essential. The U.S. and South Koreans are constantly working to sharpen their skills in using weapons and responding to enemy tactics. This includes amphibious landings, parachute drops and responding to North Korean artillery. Stopping those drills would be military malpractice.

Canceling the two giant exercises will also reduce readiness, since they are timed to coincide with North Korea’s exercises and involve allied troops and U.S. forces from other theaters. Mr. Trump made the offer as a unilateral concession, but it’s notable that Kim Jong Un has offered no comparable military gesture. Returning three Americans his government took as hostages and promising to return veterans’ remains aren’t threat-reducing.

If Mr. Trump wants to remove provocations from the peninsula, how about asking Kim to pull North Korean forces back from the Demilitarized Zone and take Seoul out of artillery range? That would justify the exercise cancellation as a goodwill offer.

Beyond the exercises is Mr. Trump’s interest in using U.S. troops in South Korea as a negotiating tool in nuclear talks. U.S. forces working alongside a democratic ally aren’t the same as the illegal development of nuclear weapons by a state sponsor of terrorism.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/06/16/whats-really-happening-with

Most commentary on the Trump/Kim summit is evidence of partisan stampede thinking. Herewith are the insights of an old professor of international affairs, who does not know what is on Trump’s or Kim’s mind any more than anyone else, but who strives to be dispassionate.

The 33-year history of negotiations about “denuclearizing” the Korean peninsula is too well known to recount here. Suffice to say that, for Americans, it has been a triumph of hope over experience, for the North Koreans an unfailing fount of assistance in the building of a redoubtable force of nuclear-armed ballistic missiles capable of reaching and commanding respect from America. For China, it has been an incomparable tool for showing other Asians that America cannot protect itself, much less them. The salient question is how this round might possibly be different.

The standard conservative answer, that Trump faced Kim with the choice between denuclearizing or being crushed, is just nuts.

Crushed how? Certainly not militarily. The United States has no way of destroying North Korea’s missiles. We have no way of knowing where they are. Nor do we know where most of its nuclear programs are located. And if we did, no one advocates starting a nuclear war to do it—especially since China has made clear that it is on North Korea’s side.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12506/trump-doctrine-middle-east

Trump has shown the strength of the United States and restored its credibility in a region where strength and force determine credibility.

Trump more broadly laid the foundation for a new alliance of the United States with the Sunni Arab world, but he put two conditions on it: a cessation of all Sunni Arab support for Islamic terrorism and an openness to the prospect of a regional peace that included Israel.

Secretary of State Pompeo spoke of the “Palestinians”, not of the Palestinian Authority, as in Iran, possibly to emphasize the distinction between the people and their leadership, and that the leadership in both situations, may no longer be part of the solution. Hamas, for the US, is clearly not part of any solution.

Netanyahu rightly said that Palestinian leaders, whoever they may be, do not want peace with Israel, but “peace without Israel”. What instead could take place would be peace without the Palestinian leaders. What could also take place would be peace without the Iranian mullahs.

After three successive American Presidents had used a six-month waiver to defer moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem for more than two decades, President Donald J. Trump decided not to wait any longer. On December 7, 2017, he declared that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; the official embassy transfer took place on May 14th, the day of Israel’s 70th anniversary.

From the moment of Trump’s declaration, leaders of the Muslim world expressed anger and announced major trouble. An Islamic summit conference was convened in Istanbul a week later, and ended with statements about a “crime against Palestine”. Western European leaders followed suit. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel said that President Trump’s decision was a “serious mistake” and could have huge “consequences”. French President Emmanuel Macron, going further, declared that the decision could provoke a “war”.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270441/trump-kim-summit-what-lies-ahead-joseph-klein

North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un and President Trump shook hands for the cameras in front of a row of alternating U.S. and North Korean flags, as they began their historic summit meeting in Singapore shortly after 9 am local time on June 12, 2018. President Trump told reporters in brief remarks before the start of an approximately 40-minute one-on-one meeting, with just translators present, that he “felt really great” and that it was “an honor” to meet Kim Jong-un. “We’re going to have a great discussion,” Trump said. “We will have a great relationship.” Kim Jong-un declared, “Well, it was not easy to get here. The past worked as fetters on our limbs, and the old prejudices and practices worked as obstacles on our way forward. But we overcame all of them, and we are here today.”

Following their private meeting, the two leaders walked to a larger room to be joined by their respective advisers, and then attended a working lunch. The historic summit concluded after about five hours with a joint statement in which President Trump “committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK [the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”

The joint statement described the summit as “an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future.” The two leaders agreed to “follow-on negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.–DPRK summit.” More summit meetings may be in the offing.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/06/the_key_to_trumps_success_in_north_korea.html

Who would have thought a real estate developer from New York City, famous for plastering his name in big letters on his buildings, would be a champion in foreign policy? Big surprise: It turns out that being confident, tough, and aggressive works well for a president dealing with dangerous pipsqueaks like ISIS and North Korea.

Trump isn’t intimidated by anybody. Not by business rivals, not by critics, not by rogue FBI agents, not by foreign leaders. Certainly not by failed experts who urge meekness, caution, and limited goals.

Our president is devoted to one thing: winning for America. He does listen to our military and work with its members to achieve the possible. He does understand how power works. Korea could thumb its nose at us because it was protected by China. So, first, Trump removed that protection by going after China. The astute Sundance at Conservative Treehouse has been pointing out for months that the trade pressure on China was the prerequisite to movement on Korea. Our expert diplomats and analysts still don’t talk about this big picture. Trump is obviously a strategic thinker, as you have to be in the business world, as in the military.

It’s not all that complicated. Kim came to the table because Trump forced him to. North Korea was made to understand quite thoroughly and clearly that its grandstanding with nukes was over. Being clear was the first step to success. Trump has no toleration for a nuclear Korea, period. When communicated forcefully, through actions, not words, that was the game-changer.

Trump reversed Kim’s motivation 100%. Kim thought the nukes were his one ticket to security. Trump showed him that the nukes are his ticket to oblivion. That is why there is reason for optimism that this is not going to be the useless nuclear diplomacy we have had since Clinton.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/promises-nuclear-promises-1528836251

Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un both received what they most wanted from their one-day summit in Singapore on Tuesday: Images of the two men shaking hands, talking across the table and getting along famously. Whether this photo-op summitry achieved anything beyond the bonhomie is a lot less clear.

In Mr. Trump’s telling, his willingness to engage in personal diplomacy has persuaded the young Kim to abandon the nuclear-weapons program that he and his forbears have spent decades building. Mr. Trump gave Kim the legitimacy of equal billing on the world stage, but the risk was worth the gamble and has paid off in an historic change of heart.

“Chairman Kim and I just signed a joint statement in which he reaffirmed his ‘unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,’” Mr. Trump told the press after the summit. “We also agreed to vigorous negotiations to implement the agreement as soon as possible. And he [Kim] wants to do that. This isn’t the past. This isn’t another administration that never got it started and therefore never got it done.”

In this telling, the two leaders have mapped out a non-nuclear future, Mr. Kim has agreed to a radical change in policy, and all that’s left is for the two sides to work out the details. Peace is at hand.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/12/when_reagan_went_to_the_wall_a_berlin-singapore_nexus_137259.html

The unlikely meeting between President Donald J. Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has ended amid handshakes, expressions of goodwill, and hopes — but no proof — that something good has begun.

Thirty-one years ago today, a momentous speech in another part of the world lit another flame of possibility. The setting was Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, the very symbol of Europe’s Cold War division between the West and the Soviet-controlled “satellite” states.

As is true regarding Trump’s Korean gambit, those in the U.S. foreign policy establishment were skeptical of President Reagan’s intentions on his 1987 trip to Germany. At a delicate point in the long dance between the two superpowers, they didn’t want Reagan antagonizing Soviet leaders with bellicose language. Infighting broke out among White House aides. But the boss wasn’t dissuaded by the experts. “The boys at State are going to kill me for this,” Reagan told deputy White House chief of staff Kenneth Duberstein, “but it’s the right thing to do.”

* * *

When Ronald Reagan arrived in Berlin on June 12, 1987, relations between Washington and Moscow had progressed far past the “evil empire” rhetoric of Reagan’s first term. Although he received little credit for it either in the U.S. or abroad, Reagan had long been fixated on reducing the world’s nuclear arsenals. Kremlin leaders were receptive to this idea, but the sticking point had always been their aversion to allowing inspectors inside the Soviet Union to verify implementation of arms reduction agreements.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-trump-tried-something-different-north-korea-summit

Reaction to President Trump’s summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has broken down along the usual Trump-anti-Trump divisions. The truth is, it will take a while before it’s clear whether the summit achieved anything or not.

But give the president credit for trying a new approach to an intractable problem.

Trump had no electoral mandate on North Korea. Despite the oversized role it has played in his presidency, the issue of Kim did not come up much in the 2016 campaign. It was rarely discussed in the GOP primary debates and wasn’t a factor in the Trump-Clinton general election debates.

Even when it did come up, the discussion could be pretty unedifying, as when rival GOP candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., compared candidate Trump to Kim. “You have a lunatic in North Korea trying to get access to nuclear weapons,” Rubio said in February 2016. “We have a lunatic in America trying to get hold of them, too.”

To the extent that he had a position on North Korea, Trump’s was that he would be willing to hold direct negotiations with Kim. While he said he would not travel to North Korea to see Kim, and would not honor him with a White House dinner, Trump made clear he saw benefit in talking to the North Korean leader.

First, President Trump is committed to a North Korea without nuclear weapons, albeit some backsliding on the matter may be in the discussion, particularly the time-table.

Second, North Korea claims a treaty with South Korea ending the six decades of hostility could be attained. The question is at what cost.

Third, North Korea has demanded a nuclear-free Korean peninsula which probably means the removal of the U.S. nuclear umbrella from South Korea and beyond.

Fourth, there are regional considerations at play including the role the U.S. will have in offering modest protection to nations in the Pacific basin.

Fifth, the North Koreans are demanding the lifting of sanctions before any serious discussion of nukes can take place.

Sixth, economic development in the North is a prerequisite for these negotiations. But the other side of the equations remains murky. What is North Korea prepared to do in order to satisfy their rivals on the other side of the DMZ?

Seventh, Kim Jung-un has demanded security for his nation and himself. However, if genuine reform occurs, the likelihood of regime change increases. Can Kim have it both ways?

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/270421/trump-loosens-gullivers-ropes-bruce-thornton

Donald Trump left the G7 meeting early to head for Singapore and meet with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. He left behind a disgruntled gaggle of Lilliputian states who have grown accustomed to U.S. leaders accepting the institutional ropes binding the world’s greatest power, and now are shocked and angry that an American leader is putting America’s interests first.

We don’t know how Trump’s high-stakes negotiating on trade and tariffs will turn out, or whether the American people can take any economic pain that may attend the correction of trade imbalances that have tended to favor our partners and rivals at the expense of our own economy. But we have long needed to concentrate our partners’ minds on the wisdom of changing their assumption that the United States will put itself second in order to uphold the “postwar world order” that frequently camouflages the subordination of our interests to theirs.

This “global order” is made up of the transnational institutions built on the rubble of two World Wars. The most important include the UN, NATO, the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the G7 group of the world’s richest economies representing 62% of global wealth, a total of $262 trillion. These multinational groups are supposed to keep the global peace, and manage the globalized economy so that it runs smoothly and equitably.

This network of institutions, however, rests on some dubious ideas. One particularly tenacious one is that the old balance of power among sovereign nations failed, leading to the 20th century’s spectacular carnage. Nations that look first to their parochial interests and distinct identities threaten the global unification and “harmony of interests” that can better create and protect prosperity, democracy, human rights, and peace.