Sanctions safest for reducing Kim arsenal

FRESH from causing consternation at the G7, Donald Trump gets a second chance with today’s historic summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un. There is much trepidation surrounding whether it will be a shot at redemption for the US president, or an opportunity to blow off his foot. According to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, there’s really only two options – peace or war. We have to hope he is mistaken. Talk is cheap, war is anything but.

Hundreds of thousands of American troops would be required to eliminate all of North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

Conflict could only result in hundreds of thousands of casualties, never mind the destruction of South Korea’s capital. Such a scenario is not an option. Fostering a better relationship, or even elevating it to any degree of normality, would be a big win.

But given Mr Trump’s thin skin, insatiable appetite for flattery and hair-trigger impetuosity, grotesque though it may be, many might settle for the status quo. Expectations of a declaration of peace in our time, or a stunning show of statesmanship from Mr Trump, seem forlorn.

No one seriously thinks North Korea will give up all its nuclear weapons. Mr Trump is desperate for a win to demonstrate to the world the art of the deal is alive and well and diplomacy is a strut in the park.

Despite the hype, tightening sanctions and increasing pressure to reduce Pyongyang’s arsenal will ultimately prove the safer and more effective option.