To Meet, or Not to Meet, To Bomb, or Not to Bomb, or Meet & Bomb?

The on and off summit meeting between President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jung-Un, coupled with the on-going debate of whether to bomb or not to bomb the Hermit Kingdom, has taken on new urgency because of the recent harsh language and hardball-brinkmanship tactics being spewed by both sides, especially after Vice President Pence was blasted as “ignorant and stupid” and Pyongyang said it was ready for a nuclear showdown if the Washington-Pyongyang dialogue failed. Really? Who blinked first?

A meeting is in order, whether June 12^th or other mutually agreeable date and hopefully dates. The mutual distrust of the last several decades will take more than one face-to-face meeting to overcome. But then again, look at what happened at Trumps first meeting with China’s Xi Jinping. Trump and Kim might just hit it off — Jinping-Rodman style.

Denuclearization is what the meeting is all about. Timeline, economic rewards and regime survival being the quid-pro-quo. There has to be a mutually agreed denuclearization plan. A reasonable timeline, no more than two to three years, while both leaders retain their current titles and positions.

Timeline with achievable benchmarks, time to meet more than once to develop mutual trust. “Complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization” benchmarks in exchange for gradual lifting of sanctions and economic aid, a subject I have written at length about in my Custom Maid for New World Disorder series of books, that includes a proposal on how to bring North Korea into the 21^st-century, with U.S., China, South Korean, Japanese and Russian economic support.

Nothing wrong in cutting out the deep-state bureaucrats in government from pre-planning and orchestrating the summit’s failure. It is after all, a New World Disorder, one that goes about dealing with long outstanding political impasses realistically — for a change!

After all, Trump is a real estate developer who is used to signing contracts with general contractors, comprehensive contracts that cover all subcontractors and issues. He is not used to doing piecemeal deals with subcontractors. That is why he didn’t like the piecemeal Iran deal.

The old tried and tested failed models pontificated about by political pundits, who always seem to get it wrong, will fail again.

Both leaders have to get down to business. Not diplomacy, political spin or smoke and mirrors. There has been enough of that. Diplomatic-business. The business way. Isn’t that why America elected Trump? Americans are fed up with politically correct diplomatic career politicians and elected a businessman. An outsider. A Blue Collar Billionaire. To get down to business. For America First.

If all else fails, bankruptcy — a concept Trump knows well and Kim may not fully understand since his country is bankrupt — military pre-emption, “anticipatory self-defense,” bombs away! Renewing the hot war until a peace treaty is signed!

China has been blamed for the change of rhetoric and posturing by Kim because it doesn’t like being excluded from the negotiating table. However, considering the current economic and military muscle-flexing America and China have embarked on for global leadership, resulting in the ZTE and Huawei bankruptcy prospects — and the Iran Nuclear deal being nixed because it was not comprehensive and did not cover all denuclearization aspects — are messages China and Kim have hopefully taken on board and come around to Trump’s way of thinking. Kim has to come to terms with the new normal. After all, let’s not forget that China is not enamored by Kim’s behavior either.

Xi Jinping should honor the friendship and understanding he reached with Trump and close the porous border between China and North Korea, not only the trade routes, but immigration routes that thousands, if not millions, of North Koreans will take if bombs start to fall that will make the Syrian war look like a small scale rehearsal — especially the nuclear fallout.

China is the banker, banking both America and North Korea and has much to lose if bombs and war replace meetings — and much to gain as well in re-building North Korea. As such, like any lender in a possible bankruptcy, it can and must ensure a collectively acceptable restructured armistice agreement — a peace treaty. That way both America and China win if Kim yields to common sense — or not!