Foreign Policy Alliance Statement on the Trump-Kim Summit in Singapore and U.S.-North Korean Relations

Foreign Policy Alliance Statement on the Trump-Kim Summit in Singapore and U.S.-North Korean Relations

June 2018

President Donald Trump made history when he met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore in June 2018 to discuss denuclearization and other issues between the U.S. and North Korea. FPA welcomes this potential thaw in U.S.-North Korean relations and encourages President Trump to continue to pursue peaceful engagement with the North Korean government.  Further, we call on the Administration to avoid provocative actions which could be misinterpreted by the North Koreans and spark armed conflict.

The agreement signed by President Trump and Kim Jong-un is little more than a nonbinding commitment to improve relations between the two countries. Nothing of concrete substance was included in the joint statement. There is no timetable for denuclearization on the part of the DPRK. However, the most important result of the Singapore summit is that both sides have embarked on confidence building measures. The U.S. has suspended joint military maneuvers with South Korea; and North Korea has promised to return remains of U.S. service members killed in the Korean War.  These are encouraging first steps on the path to a more substantial agreement.

FPA believes that if there is to be lasting peace on the Korean peninsula, the U.S. and North Korea must come to a comprehensive agreement. Elements of such an agreement include, but are not limited to: removing nuclear weapons located on the Korean peninsula, withdrawing military forces from the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), and ultimately a reduction of conventional military forces on all sides.

FPA also believes that if President Trump is to arbitrate peace with the North Korean government, he needs to be consistent with his words and his actions. Recently, the Trump administration labeled North Korea as a “significant threat” despite President Trump’s claims to the contrary. Additionally, labeling North Korea as a national security threat undermines the progress made with North Korea at the Singapore summit.

Finally, FPA applauds President Trump for taking this first step toward a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula. We encourage President Trump to consider additional confidence building measures through active diplomacy, economic engagement, cultural exchange, and full support of the normalization efforts begun under South Korean President Moon Jae In, which may prove to be the key element in finally resolving the Korean quandary.

Zachary Neeley

FPA Board: Eric C. Botts, Bob Henschen, Allan Vogel, Joe Marcinkowski, Jeff Larson, Brian Reed, Bill Crosier

Statement on the President’s Use of Military Force

FPA Statement on the President’s Use of Military Force

April 25, 2017

Pursuant to the mission of the Foreign Policy Alliance, which calls for a reform of U.S. foreign policy emphasizing diplomacy, law, and cooperation, rather than the use of military force as a means of addressing international conflict, we oppose the recent unrestrained use of military force and the threat of force by the United States government. Under resolve statements number 1 and 7 of the Foreign Policy Alliance’s resolution, “A Call to Reform U.S. Foreign Policy,” we reject the “policeman of the world” foreign policy posture whereby the U.S. intervenes militarily in the affairs of other states. Further, authority to initiate military hostilities rests with the Congress, under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

The recent U.S. attack on a Syrian air base was unconstitutional and could potentially drag the United States into becoming an active combatant in a civil war with regional and global implications. The insertion of U.S. military forces into Somalia expands America’s involvement in yet another civil war. The military posturing and threats of force in response to North Korean missile testing all point to a pattern of aggressive and reckless behavior by the President that must be subject to a full and transparent debate in Congress to determine if the use of force is in the vital interests of the United States, narrowly defined.