

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

"The relative costs of war compared to diplomacy are horrifying." (Photo by Kevin Lim/The Strait Times/Handout/Getty Images)
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.
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.
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.