Secršetary of State Rex Tillerson chaired a meeting in Vancouver Tuesday of foreign ministers to strategize allied diplomacy with North Korea. Secretary of Defense James Mattis was in Vancouver too, but mostly āto support our diplomats to ensure they negotiate from a position of strength,ā according to Pentagon spokeswoman Dana White.
Maybe it shouldāve been the other way around.
As Tillerson told the participants, Washington organized the meeting to assure the allies are all on the same page. ź§āIf all countries cut off or significantly limit their economic and diplomatic engagements with North Korea, the sum total of our individual, natiošnal efforts will increase the chances of a negotiated resolutionā he said.
Wait, negotiated solution?
Almost sounds like Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, currently the friendliest face Washington offers to the worldās rogue regimes. Following the terrifying false alarm in her state overš the weekend, Gabbard told ABCās āThis Weekā that Trump must āsit across the table from Kim Jong-un without preconditions, work out the differences, figure out a way to build this pathway towards denuclearization.ā
Well, not quite. America does have preconditions. Tillerson highlighted the danger Pyongyangās constant ballistic-missile testing poses to international aviation. And unlike those in Hawaii, the sirens that went off twice last yeš·ar in Japan were no false alarm, triggered by actual overhead North Korean missiles.
So America saā ys that before talšking, Kim must cut that out.
Tillerson also rejected a Russian-Chinese āfreeze for freezeā plan: Pyongyšang ends testing, while we cease our joint naval and military exercises in the region.
But even President Trump now seems eager to put his deal-making artistry to the Kim test. āIād probably have a very good relationship with Kim Jong-un,ā he told The Wall Street Journal last week.
But even if Kim agreed to our preconditions (big if), whatšās to negotiate?
This week, Pyongyang sent diplomats to South Korea to talk about next monthās Winter Olympics. Wanna negotiate other issues? For that, Kimās envoys demanded the return of 21 women who defected to the South in 2016 while workingź¦ in China. Doing so, of course, would doom the women to a certain horrific death, so no dice.
Thatās what negotiations with Kim would looš¬k like.
They donāt call it the Hermit Kingdom ź¦ for nothing. Pyongyang deliberately isolates North Korea from the outside world and separates the regime from the people. Kim maintains his fatherą“ās (and grandfatherās) anti-Americanism, and he craves war toys.
Why, thš °en, would he even contemplatše denuclearization?
President Bill Clinton tried, sending aid to North Korea while negotiatiš§ng phantom disarmament deals. George W. Bush removed Pyongyang from the list of state sponsors of terror in order to facilitate negotiations that never materialized. And Barack Obama tried āstrategic patienceā ā ignoring Kim in the hope heād beg to negotiate.
Why woulš½d Trump follow any of these š«failed approaches?
After decades of faux diplomacy, Kimās threat is so real that a fšalse alarm forces terrified Hawaiians to hide in sewers for fear of radioactive fallout. Imagine if nuclear-tipped missiles were really on tį£heir way here.
Perhaps the administrationās idea is to present a calm faƧade while the Wintšer Games are on, only to later publicly float stą¼riking the North.
True, like all current options, ą¹the military one is extremely unattractive. Yet, when š in doubt America must lean toward an aggressive stance, rather than a conciliatory one.
Our goal, after all, is āthe complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of North Korea,ā as ź¦ÆTillerson said Tuesday. He later added heās seeking a āpermanent and peaceful solution.ā
Regrettably, ending the menace for good without fišŖring a shot may not be possible. If it is, it can be achieved only if a credible military option is front and center.
We might be better off, therefore, sending Mattis to a future international gšathering as the main player, with Tillerson as second fiddleź§.
And strictly for strategic reasonsš, why not turn an old clichĆ© on its head: Take the diplomatic option off the table, and stop forever pretending the military one is off limits.