SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"The relative costs of war compared to diplomacy are horrifying." (Photo by Kevin Lim/The Strait Times/Handout/Getty Images)
Diplomacy Is Better Than War in North Korea
If you’re against war, this is a good development.
Jun 12, 2018
Today's historic Singapore Summit, the first meeting of a U.S. president and North Korean leader, has been knocked for too many concessions by the U.S. But against a backdrop of possible nuclear war, it would be overly cynical not to recognize the meeting's potential for good.
At best, the meeting set the stage for North Korea's denuclearization, and possibly even an end to the nearly 70-year-old, stalemated Korean War. If you're against war, this is a good development.
Just six months ago, reasonable people had reasonable fears of the world's first two-sided nuclear war, as President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un traded middle-school insults.
The U.S. spends more than 20 times as much on war and militarism as we do on diplomacy each year.
There are still countless ways the negotiations could go wrong, and real reasons to fear that members of both the administration and opposition would allow that to happen. But this moment should also help us generalize to a larger truth: diplomacy offers chances for bigger gains, and smaller losses, than war.
Yet the U.S. spends more than 20 times as much on war and militarism as we do on diplomacy each year.
Our choices have been stark. The U.S. chose war in Iraq over diplomacy in 2003. Our leaders chose certain risk over likely reward by abnegating the Iran nuclear deal. And they chose a lone plunge backward over a carefully planned march forward when they stepped back from the Paris climate accord. This must not happen when it comes to the North Korea negotiations.
The relative costs of war compared to diplomacy are horrifying. The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the U.S. $5.6 trillion, and 6,800 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives. That doesn't include non-fatal casualties, or the human or economic costs of PTSD or family stress that echo far beyond the battlefield. And it doesn't count the hundreds of thousands of non-U.S. innocent civilians who have been needlessly killed. A full-scale war with North Korea would likely be many times worse.
Diplomacy is not just the better way. It's the only way.
The North Korea negotiations are far from over, and could still tip from a fragile diplomacy back to middle-school insults and perhaps even to war. But we can and should be more optimistic than that. Diplomacy is not just the better way. It's the only way.
For the Korean talks to work, this administration will have to value diplomacy more than it did in its narrow-minded rejection of the Iran deal. It will have to value diplomacy more than it did when it pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. There's so much to gain from open communication and keeping our word. And there's so much more to lose if we allow things to fall apart.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Copyright © 2023 National Priorities Project / Institute for Policy Studies
Lindsay Koshgarian
Lindsay Koshgarian directs the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Today's historic Singapore Summit, the first meeting of a U.S. president and North Korean leader, has been knocked for too many concessions by the U.S. But against a backdrop of possible nuclear war, it would be overly cynical not to recognize the meeting's potential for good.
At best, the meeting set the stage for North Korea's denuclearization, and possibly even an end to the nearly 70-year-old, stalemated Korean War. If you're against war, this is a good development.
Just six months ago, reasonable people had reasonable fears of the world's first two-sided nuclear war, as President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un traded middle-school insults.
The U.S. spends more than 20 times as much on war and militarism as we do on diplomacy each year.
There are still countless ways the negotiations could go wrong, and real reasons to fear that members of both the administration and opposition would allow that to happen. But this moment should also help us generalize to a larger truth: diplomacy offers chances for bigger gains, and smaller losses, than war.
Yet the U.S. spends more than 20 times as much on war and militarism as we do on diplomacy each year.
Our choices have been stark. The U.S. chose war in Iraq over diplomacy in 2003. Our leaders chose certain risk over likely reward by abnegating the Iran nuclear deal. And they chose a lone plunge backward over a carefully planned march forward when they stepped back from the Paris climate accord. This must not happen when it comes to the North Korea negotiations.
The relative costs of war compared to diplomacy are horrifying. The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the U.S. $5.6 trillion, and 6,800 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives. That doesn't include non-fatal casualties, or the human or economic costs of PTSD or family stress that echo far beyond the battlefield. And it doesn't count the hundreds of thousands of non-U.S. innocent civilians who have been needlessly killed. A full-scale war with North Korea would likely be many times worse.
Diplomacy is not just the better way. It's the only way.
The North Korea negotiations are far from over, and could still tip from a fragile diplomacy back to middle-school insults and perhaps even to war. But we can and should be more optimistic than that. Diplomacy is not just the better way. It's the only way.
For the Korean talks to work, this administration will have to value diplomacy more than it did in its narrow-minded rejection of the Iran deal. It will have to value diplomacy more than it did when it pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. There's so much to gain from open communication and keeping our word. And there's so much more to lose if we allow things to fall apart.
Lindsay Koshgarian
Lindsay Koshgarian directs the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies.
Today's historic Singapore Summit, the first meeting of a U.S. president and North Korean leader, has been knocked for too many concessions by the U.S. But against a backdrop of possible nuclear war, it would be overly cynical not to recognize the meeting's potential for good.
At best, the meeting set the stage for North Korea's denuclearization, and possibly even an end to the nearly 70-year-old, stalemated Korean War. If you're against war, this is a good development.
Just six months ago, reasonable people had reasonable fears of the world's first two-sided nuclear war, as President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un traded middle-school insults.
The U.S. spends more than 20 times as much on war and militarism as we do on diplomacy each year.
There are still countless ways the negotiations could go wrong, and real reasons to fear that members of both the administration and opposition would allow that to happen. But this moment should also help us generalize to a larger truth: diplomacy offers chances for bigger gains, and smaller losses, than war.
Yet the U.S. spends more than 20 times as much on war and militarism as we do on diplomacy each year.
Our choices have been stark. The U.S. chose war in Iraq over diplomacy in 2003. Our leaders chose certain risk over likely reward by abnegating the Iran nuclear deal. And they chose a lone plunge backward over a carefully planned march forward when they stepped back from the Paris climate accord. This must not happen when it comes to the North Korea negotiations.
The relative costs of war compared to diplomacy are horrifying. The current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the U.S. $5.6 trillion, and 6,800 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives. That doesn't include non-fatal casualties, or the human or economic costs of PTSD or family stress that echo far beyond the battlefield. And it doesn't count the hundreds of thousands of non-U.S. innocent civilians who have been needlessly killed. A full-scale war with North Korea would likely be many times worse.
Diplomacy is not just the better way. It's the only way.
The North Korea negotiations are far from over, and could still tip from a fragile diplomacy back to middle-school insults and perhaps even to war. But we can and should be more optimistic than that. Diplomacy is not just the better way. It's the only way.
For the Korean talks to work, this administration will have to value diplomacy more than it did in its narrow-minded rejection of the Iran deal. It will have to value diplomacy more than it did when it pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. There's so much to gain from open communication and keeping our word. And there's so much more to lose if we allow things to fall apart.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.