OPINION:
President Trump’s tough talk on North Korea during his recent U.N. speech was appropriate in explaining the American position strongly to a world body not known for decisive action. Hopefully, it also served to reassure our regional allies — particularly Japan and South Korea — of Mr. Trump’s continued support for our alliances with both nations. The question now is: Where do we go from here?
I’ve said in these pages that Mr. Trump should meet with the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Nothing in the president’s speech changes that. Without a dialogue, one or both of two things will happen. First, the North could respond with schoolyard rhetoric; it has already done that. Second, it could follow up with more missile and nuclear tests, which may well cause the United States to respond militarily. At that point, the possibility of things getting out of hand increases exponentially.
The dangers of not talking to an opponent in a time of crisis are almost as great as talking too much while doing nothing to back it up. The American-U.N. misadventure in Somalia in 1973 is a good example. When U.S. Marines first went ashore to forcibly ensure the delivery of relief supplies, the military responders were preceded by a diplomat, the late Ambassador Robert Oakley. Oakley was an old East Africa hand who understood the culture of his opponents. He knew that they respected power and despised weakness, but he also understood that they expected action to be followed up by negotiations.
Oakley talked to the various tribal militia faction leaders, which the West branded as warlords, and laid down the law. Any attempt to interrupt the delivery of relief supplies would be countered with overwhelming force, but the Americans were not looking for a fight. As expected, several of the militias tested our resolve. They were met with a deadly and decisive American response. However, after each incident, Oakley and his military counterpart met with the appropriate militia leader and discussed the further terms of the relationship. Very soon, the rules of the road were worked out, and the operation proceeded smoothly. Within a month, the famine was broken.
In May 1993, the U.S.-led coalition handed over the ongoing operation to a U.N.-led operation and the U.S. Marine Corps heavy military force was replaced by a multinational force of U.N. peacekeepers. When the primary militia of Gen. Mohamed Farrah Aidid tested the U.N. force, a bloody clash occurred that resulted in the death of a score of Pakistani U.N. troops. The U.N. Command, UNISOM, declared Aidid and his fellow militia leaders to be criminals and put a price on their heads. The result was an escalating open-ended cycle of violence that led to the disastrous events now remembered as “Black Hawk Down.” The U.N. reputation with the Somalia people was irrevocably damaged and the attempt to rebuild the nation failed.
The other side of the force-negotiation mix is talk without the credible threat of force. The Munich analogy is overused, but it is clear that Hitler wrongly believed that the Allies would not go to war over the small countries of Central Europe.
Donald Trump has the attention of our friends and potential opponents. He would lose nothing in opening a personal dialogue with Mr. Kim. It is fairly clear that Mr. Kim thinks that a nuclear deterrent will protect his regime from outside efforts at regime change. It should be clear to everyone but Mr. Kim that the United States is not actively seeking regime change, barring an attack on the U.S. or its allies.
At this point, the president is probably the only person in the world that can look Mr. Kim in the eye and make three key points. First, reinforce the message that an attack on the U.S. or its allies will mean the end of the North Korean regime. Second, barring North Korean aggression, regime change is a matter for the people of the North to resolve; we won’t initiate it, nor will we oppose it if it happens. Regime stability is an internal problem. Third, if you like your current nukes, you can keep them. However, if you continue to conduct nuclear and missile tests we will continue to isolate you diplomatically and economically. Mr. Trump is capable of talking plainly and bluntly, and Mr. Kim would at least gain internal face with having a meeting with a major world leader.
Wars usually happen when nations stop talking or when they talk too much and lose credibility. Mr. Trump should talk with MR. Kim at a neutral location.
• Gary Anderson, a retired U.S. Marine Corps colonel, served as the senior military adviser to the U.S. Liaison Office to the UNISOM in Somalia and currently lectures at the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.