Stacking up words as weapons and waiting for the build-up of bitterness is definitely not the answer.
Looking at bolt-like official statements exchanged between US and North Korea, it seems that one of the timeless instruments of achieving truce, ‘dialogue’, has become obsolete in global politics. Threatening and intimidating nations through military and nuclear power strength show is now officially counted as ‘diplomatic’ exchange of opinions. The US-North Korea friction is historical, often heightened periodically on North Korea’s outright rejection and undermining of sanctions imposed by the US and the UN body, on expanding its nuclear arsenal. North Korea is a repetitive violator of the imposed sanctions, arousing a strong US reaction each time they test a nuclear missile. The missile test now, is not overwhelming, really.
The hatred of North Korea for the US sprouts from the historical roots of the 1950 Korean War, which started on US invasion of Korea. About 20% of North Korea’s population was killed by US air force who seemingly faced no resistance; crops were destroyed, livelihoods were ruined, and it was an example of a merciless attempt to claim dominance. North Koreans are taught from early days to hate US imperialism, so the present hatred is a product of the Korean War and its memory. Call it their decrepitude or strength, but that’s what has remained. Justified it is to hate one’s enemy, but it is never justified to live in ignorance once wisdom is within grasp for both.
The US, and now Trump, sees North Korean leadership, under Kim Jong-un, as a major threat to its and their existence, hence the heated exchange of hostility. Trump recently conveyed his unhesitating wish to meet Kim if circumstances were all right. This statement itself may reflect an inclination to resolve lingering issues once for all. Kim could simply ignore the invitation, (which he apparently has), or wholeheartedly embrace it for good. Meeting with adversaries in a world of transcendent and outreached media is quite a predictable move from Trump. After all, an attempt to establish peace is considered timelessly wiser than to create conditions of war.
It is not on Kim’s part to indulge in deep thinking about the consequences of another war, this time more brutal, with accredited nuclear power. War must be the last resort in all, it must be an obsolete option, almost unworthy of being selected. A nation’s leader is to protect the lives and properties of its citizens, and not even in the worst of circumstances force them to accept war under the disguise of nationalism. Meanwhile, Trump and the US must not impose undue sanctions just because North Korea is projected as a threat, when in reality, it is no match for its military might. The US’s relentless desire of global hegemony must stop, and it must accept North Korea as the way it is, without meddling in its internal matters or trying to bring a regime change.
Diplomatic dialogue softens hard stances of nations, as such meetings expect global critique, once concluded. Trump must rewrite history by meeting Kim, and wipe out the frictional mess, and secure a collaborative partner if the North budges. Talking and intimidating Korea about war on part of the US is easy when it has the largest military strength and budget, but reversing animosity and establishing cordial relations despite differences would be a masterstroke, and an act of genius. Before losing right reasoning in the next opportune time, ‘America First’ does not definitely mean Korea’s mourning of lost lives in a ruthless war.