web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Trump, Donald J" (Page 107)

Ivanka Trump Tests Her Diplomatic Chops and Riles a Legion of Critics

Set against a tense, eerie silence in the landmine-riddled mountains separating South and North Korea, the Demilitarized Zone may be the highest-stakes negotiation site on earth. It’s not the sort of place for mistakes.

It is the latest spot where Ivanka Trump has tried her hand at statecraft.

On Sunday, Ms. Trump, the president’s elder daughter, used an impromptu meeting between her father and Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, to further slip into the role of unofficial spokeswoman and budding stateswoman for the Trump administration. With her husband, fellow senior adviser Jared Kushner, at her side, Ms. Trump delivered news interviews, posed for photos and attended a closed-door meeting between her father and Mr. Kim.

Earlier in the day, Ms. Trump had repeated what her father has often said about dealing with the North: that it would be free of crippling sanctions and clear for an economic boom if Mr. Kim were to dismantle his nuclear program. Scant evidence suggests that Mr. Kim is taking the steps to do this, but on Sunday, two Trumps rewarded him with a visit.

“We are on the precipice of ushering in potentially a golden era for the Korean Peninsula,” Ms. Trump told Bloomberg News in the hours before her father took the historic step of crossing into the North. But by the time she emerged from the closed-door meeting between the leaders hours later, she only had one word for journalists about her encounter with North Korea.

She called it “surreal.”

Others following along called it inappropriate.

“Ivanka Trump is not on the National Security Council — she is not an adviser on the issues being discussed,” Michael A. McFaul, an ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama, said of Ms. Trump’s presence. “So her presence undermines the professional look of the Trump delegation, both to other countries and to national security professionals in the Trump administration.”

President Trump has come under fire for making family members part of his staff since the beginning of his administration, and then for clinging more tightly to them in a White House racked by turnover. Mr. Kushner alone has overseen portfolios ranging from the federal government’s outdated technology to peace in the Middle East. But for Ms. Trump, 37, the visit to Asia over the past week represented a prominent step onto a bigger stage.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_157182618_4cf9b9f7-a698-4d9c-a34d-4d0933fcb179-articleLarge Ivanka Trump Tests Her Diplomatic Chops and Riles a Legion of Critics United States Politics and Government United States International Relations Trump, Ivanka Trump, Donald J May, Theresa M Lagarde, Christine Kushner, Jared Group of Twenty Abe, Shinzo

Ms. Trump speaking about women’s empowerment at the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan, on Saturday.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

She appeared ready to assert herself from the start of the trip. She was the most visible woman from the Trump administration to go. Her stepmother, the first lady Melania Trump, stayed behind in Washington, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the former White House press secretary and a fixture of recent overseas trips, had just stepped down.

So at the summit of the Group of 20 economic powers in Osaka, Japan — the original purpose of the trip before Mr. Trump threw out a Twitter invitation to meet Mr. Kim at the Demilitarized Zone — Ms. Trump was repeatedly flanked by her father and a roster of world leaders, including Shinzo Abe, the prime minister of Japan, and Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

Observers and critics used a snippet of digital footage as a way to show that she might be out of her depth: A short video posted to Instagram by the office of Emmanuel Macron, the president of France, showed Ms. Trump in conversation with Theresa May, the departing prime minister of Britain, and Christine Lagarde, the International Monetary Fund managing director, as Mr. Macron and Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, listened.

In the clip, Ms. Trump seemed to be looking to find a place to jump into this diplomatic game of double Dutch. First Mrs. May spoke: “As soon as you charge them with that economic aspect of it, a lot of people start listening who otherwise wouldn’t listen.”

And then Ms. Trump jumped in: “And the same with the defense side of it, in terms of the whole business that’s been, sort of, male-dominated.”

Ms. Lagarde, who was standing next to the president’s daughter, swiveled her head and blinked several times as she listened.

Ms. Trump has made international women’s empowerment a cornerstone of her work in the White House. In February, she unveiled the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, a program meant to bring economic security to 50 million women across the world by 2025. In recent weeks, she has crisscrossed the country to bring attention to the Trump administration’s effort to bolster work force development. And in Osaka this weekend, she told world leaders that women should be at the heart of any economic agenda.

Still, the video posted by the French led to rampant discussion online about which doors had been opened for Ms. Trump because of her proximity to her father, and whether she should be engaging with heads of state at a diplomatic event. Among those criticizing her access was Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York.

Ms. Trump with her husband, Jared Kushner, at the G20 summit last week.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

“It may be shocking to some, but being someone’s daughter actually isn’t a career qualification,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wrote on Twitter. “It hurts our diplomatic standing when the President phones it in & the world moves on.”

On Sunday, a White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations, pushed back at the characterization that Ms. Trump had interjected or annoyed others in the conversation — particularly Ms. Lagarde, who the official said had, like the others, been attending a women’s empowerment event where Ms. Trump had been invited to speak when the interaction was filmed.

That official said Mr. Trump had requested that his daughter accompany him to several G20 events, and even delayed the start of one so he would not miss her giving an introductory speech. The president keeps the counsel of Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner closer than anyone, the official said.

A White House spokeswoman, Jessica Ditto, called the video clip a “misrepresentation” and the criticism around it “absolutely pathetic” in an email.

Gone are the days when Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner kept relatively low profiles inside the West Wing, grappling with waves of bad press as they sought to establish their profiles behind the scenes. And gone are the days when senior aides, such as John F. Kelly, the former chief of staff, tried to curb their influence.

Ms. Trump’s participation in the G20 trip illustrated just how unchecked her ascent in the White House has been in recent months, and how few people who might have raised doubts remain.

If the president has any concern about his daughter playing diplomat, it didn’t show on this trip: During a meeting for troops at a military base outside of Seoul, South Korea, the president introduced his daughter alongside Mike Pompeo, his secretary of state.

“She’s going to steal the show,” Mr. Trump said. “She’ll steal it.”

Glancing at his secretary of state and his daughter, Mr. Trump also offered his thoughts about her appearance: “Beauty and the beast, Mike,” he added.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

What Trump’s Huawei Reversal Means for the Future of 5G

In an impromptu question-and-answer session late last month at the White House, President Trump was asked about the nation’s efforts to block Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications company, from doing business in the United States and with our allies around the globe.

“Huawei is something that is very dangerous,” Mr. Trump said. Then, almost in the same breath, he added: “It’s possible that Huawei would be included in a trade deal. If we made a deal, I can imagine Huawei being included in some form or some part of a trade deal.”

Over the weekend in Japan, Mr. Trump appeared to choose trade over national security, suspending the ban on United States companies’ supplying equipment to Huawei as he hopes to reach a trade deal with President Xi Jinping of China. Without providing any details, he declared that American companies could sell to Huawei without creating a “great, national emergency problem.”

He said this even as own secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, spent the past several months traveling the world warning our allies that Huawei is a profoundly dangerous security threat and instructing them to freeze out the company.

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, used Twitter to call Mr. Trump’s reversal “a catastrophic mistake” that “will destroy the credibility of his administration’s warnings about the threat posed by the company, no one will ever again take them seriously.” (Mr. Trump followed the same playbook with ZTE earlier this year, banning it and then reversing the ban to placate the Chinese.)

While Mr. Trump may view Huawei as both “dangerous” and a pawn in the trade war, the truth is it may be something else entirely.

Huawei is the most significant long-term competitive threat to the United States’ dominance of the future of wireless technology. And the United States is woefully — even disgracefully — behind.

No matter what the United States does to hobble Huawei — and Mr. Trump’s latest stance will only hasten its rise — it will not alter a fundamental problem that clouds the conversation: The United States needs a meaningful strategy to lead the world in next-generation wireless technology — a kind of Manhattan Project for the future of connectivity.

Don’t take my word for it.

In April, amid the frenzy over the report from Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russian election interference, another alarming government report was issued — and largely overlooked.

It was written by the Defense Innovation Board, a group of business leaders and academics that advises the Defense Department. And it was a scathing indictment of the country’s 5G efforts.

“The leader of 5G stands to gain hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue over the next decade, with widespread job creation across the wireless technology sector,” wrote the board, a who’s-who of the tech world that includes the former Alphabet chairman Eric Schmidt, the LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman and Walter Isaacson, the author and a former chief executive of the Aspen Institute.

“The country that owns 5G will own many of these innovations and set the standards for the rest of the world,” the board wrote.

It added in no uncertain terms: “That country is currently not likely to be the United States.”

It is no wonder. No American company makes the devices that transmit high-speed wireless signals. Huawei is the clear the leader in the field; the Swedish company Ericsson is a distant second; and the Finnish company Nokia is third.

It is almost surprising that the Defense Department allowed the report to be published at all, given the board’s remarkably blunt assessment of the nation’s lack of innovation and what it said was one of the biggest impediments to rolling out 5G in the United States: the Pentagon itself.

The board said the broadband spectrum needed to create a successful network was reserved not for commercial purposes but for the military.

To work best, 5G needs what’s called low-band spectrum, because it allows signals to travel farther than high-band spectrum. The farther the signal can travel, the less infrastructure has to be deployed.

In China and even in Europe, governments have reserved low-band spectrum for 5G, making it efficient and less costly to blanket their countries with high-speed wireless connectivity. In the United States, the low-band spectrum is reserved for the military.

The difference this makes is stark. Google conducted an experiment for the board, placing 5G transmitters on 72,735 towers and rooftops. Using high-band spectrum, the transmitters covered only 11.6 percent of the United States population at a speed of 100 megabits per second and only 3.9 percent at 1 gigabit per second. If the same transmitters could use low-band spectrum, 57.4 percent of the population would be covered at 100 megabits per second and 21.2 percent at 1 gigabit per second.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_155325183_7c7f3abf-5f04-4008-96bb-826c46c50a15-articleLarge What Trump’s Huawei Reversal Means for the Future of 5G Xi Jinping Wireless Communications United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Radio Spectrum Innovation Huawei Technologies Co Ltd Defense Department 5G (Wireless Communications)

A London sign advertising 5G, which works best using a part of the wireless spectrum that in the United States is reserved for the military.CreditSuzie Howell for The New York Times

In other words, the spectrum that has been allotted in the United States for commercial 5G communications makes 5G significantly slower and more expensive to roll out than just about anywhere else.

That is a commercial disincentive and puts the United States at a distinct disadvantage.

The spectrum challenge creates a negative feedback loop for manufacturers, which may help explain why no major American technology company has jumped into the fray. But since President Trump issued an executive order that banned the purchase of equipment from companies posing a national security threat — which include Huawei — it threatens the ability of American companies to expand their 5G networks, particularly in rural areas.

United States phone companies like AT&T and Verizon may end up seeking to manufacture their own transmitters given the dearth of options.

Not winning the 5G contest comes with consequences. “If China leads the field in 5G infrastructure and systems, then the future 5G ecosystem will likely have Chinese components embedded throughout,” the Defense Innovation Board wrote. “This would pose a serious threat to the security of D.O.D. operations and networks going forward.”

One of the board’s recommendations is that the Defense Department share its low-band spectrum to accelerate the commercial development of the technology in the United States.

While sharing spectrum comes with its own security challenges, the board raised the prospect of some unique, surprising benefits: “Integration of government and civil use may provide a layer of security by allowing military traffic to ‘hide in plain sight’ as traffic becomes more difficult to see and isolate. Similarly, adversaries might be deterred from jamming this spectrum because they might be operating on the same bands.”

None of this is meant to suggest that Huawei does not represent a national security threat if the Chinese government were to use it to spy on foreign adversaries in the future. (Though, it is worth saying, there is no evidence presented publicly by any American agency that the company’s hardware has been used that way — yet.)

Nor should it be read as an apology for Huawei’s record of stealing intellectual property, which has been well chronicled.

Sharing spectrum should be only the start, however. Policymakers must grasp that the “market” in the United States isn’t working the way it should, especially when state actors like China are supporting companies like Huawei.

If the United States is going to lead the world, Washington needs to think hard about the incentives it provides companies — not only for research and development, where we are still leading, but also for manufacturing the technology that is in our national interest to control as well as what mergers it allows.

One morning in late February, Mr. Trump typed out a message on Twitter: “I want the United States to win through competition, not by blocking out currently more advanced technologies.”

That is a worthy goal, and an achievable one. But it requires more than the Band-Aid solution that is a trade deal or a blacklist. It requires a new strategy.

Maybe we’ll have one in time for 6G.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Iran Has Breached Critical Limit on Nuclear Fuel Under 2015 Pact, State Media Reports

WASHINGTON — Iran has exceeded a key limitation on how much nuclear fuel it can possess under the 2015 international pact curbing its nuclear program, effectively declaring that it would no longer respect an agreement that President Trump abandoned more than a year ago, state media reported on Monday.

The breach of the limitation, which restricted Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium to about 660 pounds, does not by itself give the country enough to produce a nuclear weapon. But it signals that Iran may be willing to abandon the limits and restore the far larger stockpile that took the United States and five other nations years to persuade Tehran to send abroad.

The developments were reported by the semiofficial Fars news agency, citing an “informed source.” It was unclear how much the action would escalate the tensions between Washington and Tehran after the downing of an American surveillance drone in June nearly resulted in military strikes.

But it returns the focus to Iran’s two-decade pursuit of technology that could produce a nuclear weapon — exactly where it was before President Barack Obama and President Hassan Rouhani of Iran struck their deal four years ago.

While the Trump administration had no immediate reaction to the announcement, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said last month that the United States would never allow Iran to get within one year of possessing enough fuel to produce a nuclear weapon. His special envoy for Iran, Brian H. Hook, has often said that under a new deal, the United States would insist on “zero enrichment for Iran.”

Iran has so far rejected beginning any negotiation, saying that the United States must first return to the 2015 agreement and comply with all of its terms.

“Now the inevitable escalation cycle seems well underway,” Philip H. Gordon, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Obama administration national security official, wrote in an article this spring for Foreign Affairs magazine shortly after Mr. Rouhani telegraphed that he intended to walk away from the deal’s restrictions. Iran was on a “slippery slope” to fully pulling out of the agreement, Mr. Gordon added.

On June 28, after meeting in Vienna with European officials who had promised to set up a barter system with Iran to compensate for the effects of American sanctions that Britain, France and Germany say are unwise, Iranian officials said the effort was insufficient. Mr. Hook has estimated the sanctions have cost Iran $50 billion in lost oil sales, far more than the system the Europeans are putting in place would generate.

As they left the meeting, Iranian officials hinted that the breaking of the limit would go forward, though it could just as easily be reversed in the future.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_157046697_a5c3490c-9226-48ae-9983-d4c95409c12a-articleLarge Iran Has Breached Critical Limit on Nuclear Fuel Under 2015 Pact, State Media Reports Zarif, Mohammad Javad Uranium United States Politics and Government United States International Relations Trump, Donald J Tehran (Iran) Stockpiling Rouhani, Hassan Nuclear Weapons Embargoes and Sanctions Defense and Military Forces Cyberwarfare and Defense

Advocates of the Iran deal, including former members of the Obama administration, say President Trump pushed Tehran to violate a key part of it.CreditGabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

For now, however, Iran seems on a pathway to step-by-step dissolution of key parts of the accord. Mr. Rouhani has said that Iran will begin raising the level of uranium enrichment this month.

It is possible that exceeding the stockpile limit is largely a negotiating tactic, a way for Tehran to impose costs on Washington after enduring more than a year of sanctions. But the move is risky. Mr. Rouhani and his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who negotiated the deal with the secretary of state at the time, John Kerry, are betting that the Europeans will declare that Mr. Trump, not Iran, is responsible for the collapse of the nuclear accord.

That may prove the case. European officials, in their most vivid split from Mr. Trump, are scrambling to preserve the agreement, fearful that if it falls apart, the United States and Iran could be headed toward military conflict — and perhaps war.

But a section of the pact allows the Europeans to invoke a so-called snapback of sanctions if Iran violates the terms. The Iranians say they are within their rights because the reimposition of sanctions last year by the United States gave them the grounds to halt their commitments, as well.

For advocates of the 2015 deal, like former members of the Obama administration, Mr. Trump pushed Iran into the announcement. Among the recently imposed sanctions was one that threatened action against any country that bought low-enriched uranium from Tehran. To comply with the stockpile limits, Iran shipped low-enriched uranium to Russia in return for natural uranium. With that exchange now barred, it was only a matter of time before Iran exceeded the limits.

Even before the announcement, the Pentagon and the nation’s intelligence agencies — led by the C.I.A. and the National Security Agency — were beginning to review what steps to take if the president determined that Iran was getting too close to producing a bomb.

A decade ago, the Obama administration conducted a highly classified cyberattack, code-named Olympic Games, at the Natanz enrichment site. The breach neutralized Iran’s centrifuges, which spin at supersonic speeds to enrich uranium, and destroyed about 1,000 of the 5,000 machines then in operation. But after two years, Iran rebounded, and when the nuclear accord came into effect, it had more than 17,000 centrifuges, most of which were dismantled under the agreement.

If the United States targets Iran’s uranium enrichment operations, experts say, it is likely to take aim again at the Natanz site. But this time, the Iranians appear far better prepared. Other major nuclear sites, including the primary production facility for converting raw uranium to a gas form, and factories that produce next-generation centrifuges, are also likely targets, according to former officials.

In the weeks before the announcement, Saudi Arabia’s state news media has called for “surgical strikes” against Iran, as has Senator Tom Cotton, who pressed for military action after the downing of the drone. Mr. Trump initially agreed, then pulled back.

But any operation against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, either with conventional arms or cyberweapons, would be highly risky. And some administration officials warn that acting now would be premature. Even if Iran possesses 800 or 900 kilograms of uranium, it would be insufficient for a single bomb. That threshold is not likely to be crossed until later this summer.

“If there is conflict, if there is war, if there is a kinetic activity, it will be because the Iranians made that choice,” Mr. Pompeo said last week during a visit to New Delhi. “I hope that they do not.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

In New Talks, U.S. May Settle for a Nuclear Freeze by North Korea

SEOUL, South Korea — From a seemingly fanciful tweet to a historic step into North Korean territory, President Trump’s largely improvised third meeting on Sunday with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, was a masterpiece of drama, the kind of made-for-TV spectacle that Mr. Trump treasures.

But for weeks before the meeting, which started as a Twitter offer by the president for Mr. Kim to drop by at the Demilitarized Zone and “say hello,” a real idea has been taking shape inside the Trump administration that officials hope might create a foundation for a new round of negotiations.

The concept would amount to a nuclear freeze, one that essentially enshrines the status quo, and tacitly accepts the North as a nuclear power, something administration officials have often said they would never stand for.

It falls far short of Mr. Trump’s initial vow 30 months ago to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, but it might provide him with a retort to campaign-season critics who say the North Korean dictator has been playing the American president brilliantly by giving him the visuals he craves while holding back on real concessions.

While the approach could stop that arsenal from growing, it would not, at least in the near future, dismantle any existing weapons, variously estimated at 20 to 60. Nor would it limit the North’s missile capability.

The administration still insists in public and in private that its goals remain full denuclearization. But recognizing that its maximalist demand for the near-term surrender of Mr. Kim’s cherished nuclear program is going nowhere, it is weighing a new approach that would begin with a significant — but limited — first step.

American negotiators would seek to expand on Mr. Kim’s offer in Hanoi in February to give up the country’s main nuclear-fuel production site, at Yongbyon, in return for the most onerous sanctions against the country being lifted. Mr. Trump, under pressure from his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and his national security adviser, John R. Bolton, rejected that proposal, because so much of the North’s capability now lies outside the vast Yongbyon complex.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_151382880_8cbed7f8-ee99-46a6-8203-3fee6355ddde-articleLarge In New Talks, U.S. May Settle for a Nuclear Freeze by North Korea United States International Relations United States Trump, Donald J Nuclear Weapons North Korea Kim Jong-un Arms Control and Limitation and Disarmament

The Yongbyon nuclear complex.CreditDigitalGlobe, via Getty Images

The idea now is to get Mr. Kim’s new negotiating team to agree to expand the definition of the Yongbyon site well beyond its physical boundaries. If successful — and there are many obstacles, including the North accepting intrusive, perhaps invasive inspections — it would effectively amount to a nuclear freeze that keeps North Korea from making new nuclear material.

But a senior United States official involved in North Korean policy said there was no way to know if North Korea would agree to this. In the past, he said, its negotiators have insisted that only Mr. Kim himself could define what dismantling Yongbyon meant.

To make any deal work, the North would have to agree to include many facilities around the country, among them a covert site called Kangson, which is outside Yongbyon and is where American and South Korean intelligence agencies believe the country is still producing uranium fuel.

A president embarking on a re-election campaign — and who complained repeatedly on Sunday that he receives no credit from the media for de-escalating tensions with North Korea and for the freeze on underground nuclear tests and test-launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles — would most likely cast this as a victory, as another restraint on Mr. Kim. It would help Mr. Trump argue that he is making progress, albeit slowly, on one of the world’s most intractable crises.

And it would be progress after three face-to-face meetings — first in Singapore a little more than a year ago, then in Hanoi, then in an hourlong discussion at the DMZ on Sunday — that have produced warm exchanges but no shared definitions of what it meant to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. A year after that first meeting, the North has yet to turn over an inventory of what it possesses, claiming that would give the United States a map of military targets.

On Sunday evening, the State Department’s envoy to North Korea, Stephen E. Biegun, said that this account of the ideas being generated in the administration was “pure speculation” and that his team was “not preparing any new proposal currently.”

“What is accurate is not new, and what is new is not accurate,” he said.

Presumably, Mr. Trump’s freeze would have to be a permanent one, or he will have gotten less from Mr. Kim than President Barack Obama got from Iran in a deal Mr. Trump dismissed as “disastrous.” And even a successful freeze would constitute a major retreat from the goal of the “rapid denuclearization of North Korea, to be completed by January 2021,” as Mr. Pompeo put it last fall.

The two leaders on Sunday. Mr. Trump prizes his personal relationship with Mr. Kim.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

But it does have the benefit of being vastly more achievable.

More than two years ago, on his first trip to Seoul, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson rejected a similar idea. He said it would “leave North Korea with significant capabilities that would represent a true threat, not just to the region, but to American forces, as well.”

But Mr. Trump, who prizes his personal relationship with Mr. Kim, would most likely argue that a freeze was groundbreaking. (He has also described Mr. Tillerson, who he dismissed early in 2018, as “dumb as a rock” so he would most likely not be limited by his past declarations.)

In fact, this approach has been attempted before: It bears strong similarities to the nuclear freeze President Bill Clinton negotiated with Mr. Kim’s father in 1994. But that was a dozen years before the North’s first nuclear test, and before it possessed either nuclear weapons or the capability to deliver them.

Mr. Clinton’s deal held for five or six years, until it became obvious the North was cheating by seeking a new approach to the bomb — uranium enrichment. The North broke out of it in 2003. George W. Bush negotiated a partial freeze at Yongbyon in 2007; it too fell apart.

The approach raises the larger question of whether Mr. Trump really cares about striking a tough denuclearization deal, or whether, as many critics charge, he is mainly interested in the illusion of progress to present himself to voters as a peacemaker.

“The president constantly takes credit for the fact that the prospect of war has receded,” said Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who was involved in the Bush administration’s confrontations with the North. “But it went up not because North Korea was doing anything differently, but because the administration was threatening war. And it went down not because the threat had lessened, but because the administration seemed content with the chimera of denuclearization.”

Mr. Trump’s more limited expectations may, however, mesh perfectly with Mr. Kim’s plans. While Mr. Kim is eager to shed all the economic sanctions on his country, some North Korea analysts believe he would happily accept only partial sanctions relief along with lowered expectations that he might actually surrender his arsenal.

Mr. Trump with South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in, at a news conference on Sunday.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

“I do think Kim could offer just enough on the negotiating table, such as the Yongbyon nuclear facility plus yet another suspected nuclear facility, in order to secure an interim deal with Trump and at least some sanctions relief,” said Sue Mi Terry, who served at the C.I.A. and the National Security Council under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Mr. Kim “may calculate that this is still not a bad deal because it would allow the North to keep its nuclear and missile arsenal — and it would give Trump an opportunity to claim he had achieved something none of his predecessors had,” Ms. Terry said.

At the core of Mr. Trump’s argument is that his friendship with Mr. Kim alone constitutes diplomatic success; on Sunday, the president asserted that the “tremendous danger” from North Korea he inherited when he took office has passed. “We’re a lot safer today,” Mr. Trump said before a meeting with South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in.

Adam Mount, a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, said, “Several times he spoke as if friendship with Kim Jong-un is an end in itself.”

Mr. Trump may once have warned of “fire and fury” if Mr. Kim failed to surrender his weapons, but he “now embraces that these meetings aren’t about getting to denuclearization but instead having a good one-to-one relationship with Kim Jong-un,” said Van Jones, a former senior country director for Korea at the Department of Defense during the Obama administration

“That’s legitimation of a nuclear state,” Mr. Jones said.

If so, the outline of the next year or so of negotiations may be taking shape: A series of on-and-off negotiations that creep forward, punctuated by feel-good presidential meetings like Sunday’s, while the world grows use to an arsenal of North Korean weapons the way it grew accustomed to Pakistan’s, or India’s or Israel’s.

“Despite all the reality show-like optics of the Singapore and Hanoi summits and this meeting today, what substantive progress have we made in denuclearization?” asked Yun Duk-min, a former chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy who now teaches at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul. “Not a single nuclear warhead or missile in North Korea has been eliminated. The North’s nuclear facilities are still in operation.”

On Sunday, Mr. Trump was ushered into the Demilitarized Zone by President Moon of South Korea — who then sat outside while Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim met. It was a stunning bit of symbolism for those who argue the South has been sidelined in these talks.

Despite the imagery, Mr. Moon’s government sounded optimistic, at least officially.

“Through their meeting today, the South and North Korean leaders and the American leader made history,” Yoon Do-han, Mr. Moon’s chief presidential press secretary, said in a statement following the border meeting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

In New Talks, U.S. May Accept Nuclear Freeze by North Korea

SEOUL, South Korea — From a seemingly fanciful tweet to a historic step into North Korean territory, President Trump’s largely improvised third meeting on Sunday with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, was a masterpiece of drama, the kind of made-for-TV spectacle that Mr. Trump treasures.

But for weeks before the meeting, which started as a Twitter offer by the president for Mr. Kim to drop by at the Demilitarized Zone and “say hello,” a real idea has been taking shape inside the Trump administration that officials hope might create a foundation for a new round of negotiations.

The concept would amount to a nuclear freeze, one that essentially enshrines the status quo, and tacitly accepts the North as a nuclear power, something administration officials have often said they would never stand for.

It falls far short of Mr. Trump’s initial vow 30 months ago to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, but it might provide him with a retort to campaign-season critics who say the North Korean dictator has been playing the American president brilliantly by giving him the visuals he craves while holding back on real concessions.

While the approach could stop that arsenal from growing, it would not, at least in the near future, dismantle any existing weapons, variously estimated at 20 to 60. Nor would it limit the North’s missile capability.

The administration still insists in public and in private that its goals remain full denuclearization. But recognizing that its maximalist demand for the near-term surrender of Mr. Kim’s cherished nuclear program is going nowhere, it is weighing a new approach that would begin with a significant — but limited — first step.

American negotiators would seek to expand on Mr. Kim’s offer in Hanoi in February to give up the country’s main nuclear-fuel production site, at Yongbyon, in return for the most onerous sanctions against the country being lifted. Mr. Trump, under pressure from his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and his national security adviser, John R. Bolton, rejected that proposal, because so much of the North’s capability now lies outside the vast Yongbyon complex.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_151382880_8cbed7f8-ee99-46a6-8203-3fee6355ddde-articleLarge In New Talks, U.S. May Accept Nuclear Freeze by North Korea United States International Relations United States Trump, Donald J Nuclear Weapons North Korea Kim Jong-un Arms Control and Limitation and Disarmament

The Yongbyon nuclear complex.CreditDigitalGlobe, via Getty Images

The idea now is to get Mr. Kim’s new negotiating team to agree to expand the definition of the Yongbyon site well beyond its physical boundaries. If successful — and there are many obstacles, including the North accepting intrusive, perhaps invasive inspections — it would effectively amount to a nuclear freeze that keeps North Korea from making new nuclear material.

But a senior United States official involved in North Korean policy said there was no way to know if North Korea would agree to this. In the past, he said, its negotiators have insisted that only Mr. Kim himself could define what dismantling Yongbyon meant.

To make any deal work, the North would have to agree to include many facilities around the country, among them a covert site called Kangson, which is outside Yongbyon and is where American and South Korean intelligence agencies believe the country is still producing uranium fuel.

A president embarking on a re-election campaign — and who complained repeatedly on Sunday that he receives no credit from the media for de-escalating tensions with North Korea and for the freeze on underground nuclear tests and test-launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles — would most likely cast this as a victory, as another restraint on Mr. Kim. It would help Mr. Trump argue that he is making progress, albeit slowly, on one of the world’s most intractable crises.

And it would be progress after three face-to-face meetings — first in Singapore a little more than a year ago, then in Hanoi, then in an hourlong discussion at the DMZ on Sunday — that have produced warm exchanges but no shared definitions of what it meant to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. A year after that first meeting, the North has yet to turn over an inventory of what it possesses, claiming that would give the United States a map of military targets.

On Sunday evening, the State Department’s envoy to North Korea, Stephen E. Biegun, said that this account of the ideas being generated in the administration was “pure speculation” and that his team was “not preparing any new proposal currently.”

“What is accurate is not new, and what is new is not accurate,” he said.

Presumably, Mr. Trump’s freeze would have to be a permanent one, or he will have gotten less from Mr. Kim than President Barack Obama got from Iran in a deal Mr. Trump dismissed as “disastrous.” And even a successful freeze would constitute a major retreat from the goal of the “rapid denuclearization of North Korea, to be completed by January 2021,” as Mr. Pompeo put it last fall.

The two leaders on Sunday. Mr. Trump prizes his personal relationship with Mr. Kim.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

But it does have the benefit of being vastly more achievable.

More than two years ago, on his first trip to Seoul, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson rejected a similar idea. He said it would “leave North Korea with significant capabilities that would represent a true threat, not just to the region, but to American forces, as well.”

But Mr. Trump, who prizes his personal relationship with Mr. Kim, would most likely argue that a freeze was groundbreaking. (He has also described Mr. Tillerson, who he dismissed early in 2018, as “dumb as a rock” so he would most likely not be limited by his past declarations.)

In fact, this approach has been attempted before: It bears strong similarities to the nuclear freeze President Bill Clinton negotiated with Mr. Kim’s father in 1994. But that was a dozen years before the North’s first nuclear test, and before it possessed either nuclear weapons or the capability to deliver them.

Mr. Clinton’s deal held for five or six years, until it became obvious the North was cheating by seeking a new approach to the bomb — uranium enrichment. The North broke out of it in 2003. George W. Bush negotiated a partial freeze at Yongbyon in 2007; it too fell apart.

The approach raises the larger question of whether Mr. Trump really cares about striking a tough denuclearization deal, or whether, as many critics charge, he is mainly interested in the illusion of progress to present himself to voters as a peacemaker.

“The president constantly takes credit for the fact that the prospect of war has receded,” said Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who was involved in the Bush administration’s confrontations with the North. “But it went up not because North Korea was doing anything differently, but because the administration was threatening war. And it went down not because the threat had lessened, but because the administration seemed content with the chimera of denuclearization.”

Mr. Trump’s more limited expectations may, however, mesh perfectly with Mr. Kim’s plans. While Mr. Kim is eager to shed all the economic sanctions on his country, some North Korea analysts believe he would happily accept only partial sanctions relief along with lowered expectations that he might actually surrender his arsenal.

Mr. Trump with South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in, at a news conference on Sunday.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

“I do think Kim could offer just enough on the negotiating table, such as the Yongbyon nuclear facility plus yet another suspected nuclear facility, in order to secure an interim deal with Trump and at least some sanctions relief,” said Sue Mi Terry, who served at the C.I.A. and the National Security Council under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Mr. Kim “may calculate that this is still not a bad deal because it would allow the North to keep its nuclear and missile arsenal — and it would give Trump an opportunity to claim he had achieved something none of his predecessors had,” Ms. Terry said.

At the core of Mr. Trump’s argument is that his friendship with Mr. Kim alone constitutes diplomatic success; on Sunday, the president asserted that the “tremendous danger” from North Korea he inherited when he took office has passed. “We’re a lot safer today,” Mr. Trump said before a meeting with South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in.

Adam Mount, a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, said, “Several times he spoke as if friendship with Kim Jong-un is an end in itself.”

Mr. Trump may once have warned of “fire and fury” if Mr. Kim failed to surrender his weapons, but he “now embraces that these meetings aren’t about getting to denuclearization but instead having a good one-to-one relationship with Kim Jong-un,” said Van Jones, a former senior country director for Korea at the Department of Defense during the Obama administration

“That’s legitimation of a nuclear state,” Mr. Jones said.

If so, the outline of the next year or so of negotiations may be taking shape: A series of on-and-off negotiations that creep forward, punctuated by feel-good presidential meetings like Sunday’s, while the world grows use to an arsenal of North Korean weapons the way it grew accustomed to Pakistan’s, or India’s or Israel’s.

“Despite all the reality show-like optics of the Singapore and Hanoi summits and this meeting today, what substantive progress have we made in denuclearization?” asked Yun Duk-min, a former chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy who now teaches at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul. “Not a single nuclear warhead or missile in North Korea has been eliminated. The North’s nuclear facilities are still in operation.”

On Sunday, Mr. Trump was ushered into the Demilitarized Zone by President Moon of South Korea — who then sat outside while Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim met. It was a stunning bit of symbolism for those who argue the South has been sidelined in these talks.

Despite the imagery, Mr. Moon’s government sounded optimistic, at least officially.

“Through their meeting today, the South and North Korean leaders and the American leader made history,” Yoon Do-han, Mr. Moon’s chief presidential press secretary, said in a statement following the border meeting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Idea for North Korea Nuclear Deal Would Halt New Weapons but Initially Keep Arsenal Intact

SEOUL, South Korea — From a seemingly fanciful tweet to a historic step into North Korean territory, President Trump’s largely improvised third meeting on Sunday with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, was a masterpiece of drama, the kind of made-for-TV spectacle that Mr. Trump treasures.

But for weeks before the meeting, which started as a Twitter offer by the president for Mr. Kim to drop by at the Demilitarized Zone and “say hello,” a real idea has been taking shape inside the Trump administration that officials hope might create a foundation for a new round of negotiations.

The concept would amount to a nuclear freeze, one that essentially enshrines the status quo, and tacitly accepts the North as a nuclear power, something administration officials have often said they would never stand for.

It falls far short of Mr. Trump’s initial vow 30 months ago to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, but it might provide him with a retort to campaign-season critics who say the North Korean dictator has been playing the American president brilliantly by giving him the visuals he craves while holding back on real concessions.

While the approach could stop that arsenal from growing, it would not, at least in the near future, dismantle any existing weapons, variously estimated at 20 to 60. Nor would it limit the North’s missile capability.

The administration still insists in public and in private that its goals remain full denuclearization. But recognizing that its maximalist demand for the near-term surrender of Mr. Kim’s cherished nuclear program is going nowhere, it is weighing a new approach that would begin with a significant — but limited — first step.

American negotiators would seek to expand on Mr. Kim’s offer in Hanoi in February to give up the country’s main nuclear-fuel production site, at Yongbyon, in return for the most onerous sanctions against the country being lifted. Mr. Trump, under pressure from his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and his national security adviser, John R. Bolton, rejected that proposal, because so much of the North’s capability now lies outside the vast Yongbyon complex.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_151382880_8cbed7f8-ee99-46a6-8203-3fee6355ddde-articleLarge Idea for North Korea Nuclear Deal Would Halt New Weapons but Initially Keep Arsenal Intact United States International Relations United States Trump, Donald J Nuclear Weapons North Korea Kim Jong-un Arms Control and Limitation and Disarmament

The Yongbyon nuclear complex.CreditDigitalGlobe, via Getty Images

The idea now is to get Mr. Kim’s new negotiating team to agree to expand the definition of the Yongbyon site well beyond its physical boundaries. If successful — and there are many obstacles, including the North accepting intrusive, perhaps invasive inspections — it would effectively amount to a nuclear freeze that keeps North Korea from making new nuclear material.

But a senior United States official involved in North Korean policy said there was no way to know if North Korea would agree to this. In the past, he said, its negotiators have insisted that only Mr. Kim himself could define what dismantling Yongbyon meant.

To make any deal work, the North would have to agree to include many facilities around the country, among them a covert site called Kangson, which is outside Yongbyon and is where American and South Korean intelligence agencies believe the country is still producing uranium fuel.

A president embarking on a re-election campaign — and who complained repeatedly on Sunday that he receives no credit from the media for de-escalating tensions with North Korea and for the freeze on underground nuclear tests and test-launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles — would most likely cast this as a victory, as another restraint on Mr. Kim. It would help Mr. Trump argue that he is making progress, albeit slowly, on one of the world’s most intractable crises.

And it would be progress after three face-to-face meetings — first in Singapore a little more than a year ago, then in Hanoi, then in an hourlong discussion at the DMZ on Sunday — that have produced warm exchanges but no shared definitions of what it meant to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. A year after that first meeting, the North has yet to turn over an inventory of what it possesses, claiming that would give the United States a map of military targets.

On Sunday evening, the State Department’s envoy to North Korea, Stephen E. Biegun, said that this account of the ideas being generated in the administration was “pure speculation” and that his team was “not preparing any new proposal currently.”

“What is accurate is not new, and what is new is not accurate,” he said.

Presumably, Mr. Trump’s freeze would have to be a permanent one, or he will have gotten less from Mr. Kim than President Barack Obama got from Iran in a deal Mr. Trump dismissed as “disastrous.” And even a successful freeze would constitute a major retreat from the goal of the “rapid denuclearization of North Korea, to be completed by January 2021,” as Mr. Pompeo put it last fall.

The two leaders on Sunday. Mr. Trump prizes his personal relationship with Mr. Kim.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

But it does have the benefit of being vastly more achievable.

More than two years ago, on his first trip to Seoul, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson rejected a similar idea. He said it would “leave North Korea with significant capabilities that would represent a true threat, not just to the region, but to American forces, as well.”

But Mr. Trump, who prizes his personal relationship with Mr. Kim, would most likely argue that a freeze was groundbreaking. (He has also described Mr. Tillerson, who he dismissed early in 2018, as “dumb as a rock” so he would most likely not be limited by his past declarations.)

In fact, this approach has been attempted before: It bears strong similarities to the nuclear freeze President Bill Clinton negotiated with Mr. Kim’s father in 1994. But that was a dozen years before the North’s first nuclear test, and before it possessed either nuclear weapons or the capability to deliver them.

Mr. Clinton’s deal held for five or six years, until it became obvious the North was cheating by seeking a new approach to the bomb — uranium enrichment. The North broke out of it in 2003. George W. Bush negotiated a partial freeze at Yongbyon in 2007; it too fell apart.

The approach raises the larger question of whether Mr. Trump really cares about striking a tough denuclearization deal, or whether, as many critics charge, he is mainly interested in the illusion of progress to present himself to voters as a peacemaker.

“The president constantly takes credit for the fact that the prospect of war has receded,” said Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who was involved in the Bush administration’s confrontations with the North. “But it went up not because North Korea was doing anything differently, but because the administration was threatening war. And it went down not because the threat had lessened, but because the administration seemed content with the chimera of denuclearization.”

Mr. Trump’s more limited expectations may, however, mesh perfectly with Mr. Kim’s plans. While Mr. Kim is eager to shed all the economic sanctions on his country, some North Korea analysts believe he would happily accept only partial sanctions relief along with lowered expectations that he might actually surrender his arsenal.

Mr. Trump with South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in, at a news conference on Sunday.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

“I do think Kim could offer just enough on the negotiating table, such as the Yongbyon nuclear facility plus yet another suspected nuclear facility, in order to secure an interim deal with Trump and at least some sanctions relief,” said Sue Mi Terry, who served at the C.I.A. and the National Security Council under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Mr. Kim “may calculate that this is still not a bad deal because it would allow the North to keep its nuclear and missile arsenal — and it would give Trump an opportunity to claim he had achieved something none of his predecessors had,” Ms. Terry said.

At the core of Mr. Trump’s argument is that his friendship with Mr. Kim alone constitutes diplomatic success; on Sunday, the president asserted that the “tremendous danger” from North Korea he inherited when he took office has passed. “We’re a lot safer today,” Mr. Trump said before a meeting with South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in.

Adam Mount, a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, said, “Several times he spoke as if friendship with Kim Jong-un is an end in itself.”

Mr. Trump may once have warned of “fire and fury” if Mr. Kim failed to surrender his weapons, but he “now embraces that these meetings aren’t about getting to denuclearization but instead having a good one-to-one relationship with Kim Jong-un,” said Van Jones, a former senior country director for Korea at the Department of Defense during the Obama administration

“That’s legitimation of a nuclear state,” Mr. Jones said.

If so, the outline of the next year or so of negotiations may be taking shape: A series of on-and-off negotiations that creep forward, punctuated by feel-good presidential meetings like Sunday’s, while the world grows use to an arsenal of North Korean weapons the way it grew accustomed to Pakistan’s, or India’s or Israel’s.

“Despite all the reality show-like optics of the Singapore and Hanoi summits and this meeting today, what substantive progress have we made in denuclearization?” asked Yun Duk-min, a former chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy who now teaches at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul. “Not a single nuclear warhead or missile in North Korea has been eliminated. The North’s nuclear facilities are still in operation.”

On Sunday, Mr. Trump was ushered into the Demilitarized Zone by President Moon of South Korea — who then sat outside while Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim met. It was a stunning bit of symbolism for those who argue the South has been sidelined in these talks.

Despite the imagery, Mr. Moon’s government sounded optimistic, at least officially.

“Through their meeting today, the South and North Korean leaders and the American leader made history,” Yoon Do-han, Mr. Moon’s chief presidential press secretary, said in a statement following the border meeting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

This North Korea Nuclear Deal Would Halt New Weapons but Initially Keep Arsenal Intact

SEOUL, South Korea — From a seemingly fanciful tweet to a historic step into North Korean territory, President Trump’s largely improvised third meeting on Sunday with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, was a masterpiece of drama, the kind of made-for-TV spectacle that Mr. Trump treasures.

But for weeks before the meeting, which started as a Twitter offer by the president for Mr. Kim to drop by at the Demilitarized Zone and “say hello,” a real idea has been taking shape inside the Trump administration that officials hope might create a foundation for a new round of negotiations.

The concept would amount to a nuclear freeze, one that essentially enshrines the status quo, and tacitly accepts the North as a nuclear power, something administration officials have often said they would never stand for.

It falls far short of Mr. Trump’s initial vow 30 months ago to solve the North Korea nuclear problem, but it might provide him with a retort to campaign-season critics who say the North Korean dictator has been playing the American president brilliantly by giving him the visuals he craves while holding back on real concessions.

While the approach could stop that arsenal from growing, it would not, at least in the near future, dismantle any existing weapons, variously estimated at 20 to 60. Nor would it limit the North’s missile capability.

The administration still insists in public and in private that its goals remain full denuclearization. But recognizing that its maximalist demand for the near-term surrender of Mr. Kim’s cherished nuclear program is going nowhere, it is weighing a new approach that would begin with a significant — but limited — first step.

American negotiators would seek to expand on Mr. Kim’s offer in Hanoi in February to give up the country’s main nuclear-fuel production site, at Yongbyon, in return for the most onerous sanctions against the country being lifted. Mr. Trump, under pressure from his secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and his national security adviser, John R. Bolton, rejected that proposal, because so much of the North’s capability now lies outside the vast Yongbyon complex.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_151382880_8cbed7f8-ee99-46a6-8203-3fee6355ddde-articleLarge This North Korea Nuclear Deal Would Halt New Weapons but Initially Keep Arsenal Intact United States International Relations United States Trump, Donald J Nuclear Weapons North Korea Kim Jong-un Arms Control and Limitation and Disarmament

The Yongbyon nuclear complex.CreditDigitalGlobe, via Getty Images

The idea now is to get Mr. Kim’s new negotiating team to agree to expand the definition of the Yongbyon site well beyond its physical boundaries. If successful — and there are many obstacles, including the North accepting intrusive, perhaps invasive inspections — it would effectively amount to a nuclear freeze that keeps North Korea from making new nuclear material.

But a senior United States official involved in North Korean policy said there was no way to know if North Korea would agree to this. In the past, he said, its negotiators have insisted that only Mr. Kim himself could define what dismantling Yongbyon meant.

To make any deal work, the North would have to agree to include many facilities around the country, among them a covert site called Kangson, which is outside Yongbyon and is where American and South Korean intelligence agencies believe the country is still producing uranium fuel.

A president embarking on a re-election campaign — and who complained repeatedly on Sunday that he receives no credit from the media for de-escalating tensions with North Korea and for the freeze on underground nuclear tests and test-launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles — would most likely cast this as a victory, as another restraint on Mr. Kim. It would help Mr. Trump argue that he is making progress, albeit slowly, on one of the world’s most intractable crises.

And it would be progress after three face-to-face meetings — first in Singapore a little more than a year ago, then in Hanoi, then in an hourlong discussion at the DMZ on Sunday — that have produced warm exchanges but no shared definitions of what it meant to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. A year after that first meeting, the North has yet to turn over an inventory of what it possesses, claiming that would give the United States a map of military targets.

Presumably, Mr. Trump’s freeze would have to be a permanent one, or he will have gotten less from Mr. Kim than President Barack Obama got from Iran in a deal Mr. Trump dismissed as “disastrous.” And even a successful freeze would constitute a major retreat from the goal of the “rapid denuclearization of North Korea, to be completed by January 2021,” as Mr. Pompeo put it last fall.

But it does have the benefit of being vastly more achievable.

More than two years ago, on his first trip to Seoul, Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson rejected a similar idea. He said it would “leave North Korea with significant capabilities that would represent a true threat, not just to the region, but to American forces, as well.”

The two leaders on Sunday. Mr. Trump prizes his personal relationship with Mr. Kim.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

But Mr. Trump, who prizes his personal relationship with Mr. Kim, would most likely argue that a freeze was groundbreaking. (He has also described Mr. Tillerson, who he dismissed early in 2018, as “dumb as a rock” so he would most likely not be limited by his past declarations.)

In fact, this approach has been attempted before: It bears strong similarities to the nuclear freeze President Bill Clinton negotiated with Mr. Kim’s father in 1994. But that was a dozen years before the North’s first nuclear test, and before it possessed either nuclear weapons or the capability to deliver them.

Mr. Clinton’s deal held for five or six years, until it became obvious the North was cheating by seeking a new approach to the bomb — uranium enrichment. The North broke out of it in 2003. George W. Bush negotiated a partial freeze at Yongbyon in 2007; it too fell apart.

The approach raises the larger question of whether Mr. Trump really cares about striking a tough denuclearization deal, or whether, as many critics charge, he is mainly interested in the illusion of progress to present himself to voters as a peacemaker.

“The president constantly takes credit for the fact that the prospect of war has receded,” said Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, who was involved in the Bush administration’s confrontations with the North. “But it went up not because North Korea was doing anything differently, but because the administration was threatening war. And it went down not because the threat had lessened, but because the administration seemed content with the chimera of denuclearization.”

Mr. Trump’s more limited expectations may, however, mesh perfectly with Mr. Kim’s plans. While Mr. Kim is eager to shed all the economic sanctions on his country, some North Korea analysts believe he would happily accept only partial sanctions relief along with lowered expectations that he might actually surrender his arsenal.

“I do think Kim could offer just enough on the negotiating table, such as the Yongbyon nuclear facility plus yet another suspected nuclear facility, in order to secure an interim deal with Trump and at least some sanctions relief,” said Sue Mi Terry, who served at the C.I.A. and the National Security Council under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Mr. Trump with South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in, at a news conference on Sunday.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

Mr. Kim “may calculate that this is still not a bad deal because it would allow the North to keep its nuclear and missile arsenal — and it would give Trump an opportunity to claim he had achieved something none of his predecessors had,” Ms. Terry said.

At the core of Mr. Trump’s argument is that his friendship with Mr. Kim alone constitutes diplomatic success; on Sunday, the president asserted that the “tremendous danger” from North Korea he inherited when he took office has passed. “We’re a lot safer today,” Mr. Trump said before a meeting with South Korea’s president, Moon Jae-in.

Adam Mount, a senior fellow at the Federation of American Scientists, said, “Several times he spoke as if friendship with Kim Jong-un is an end in itself.”

Mr. Trump may once have warned of “fire and fury” if Mr. Kim failed to surrender his weapons, but he “now embraces that these meetings aren’t about getting to denuclearization but instead having a good one-to-one relationship with Kim Jong-un,” said Van Jones, a former senior country director for Korea at the Department of Defense during the Obama administration

“That’s legitimation of a nuclear state,” Mr. Jones said.

If so, the outline of the next year or so of negotiations may be taking shape: A series of on-and-off negotiations that creep forward, punctuated by feel-good presidential meetings like Sunday’s, while the world grows use to an arsenal of North Korean weapons the way it grew accustomed to Pakistan’s, or India’s or Israel’s.

“Despite all the reality show-like optics of the Singapore and Hanoi summits and this meeting today, what substantive progress have we made in denuclearization?” asked Yun Duk-min, a former chancellor of the Korea National Diplomatic Academy who now teaches at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in Seoul. “Not a single nuclear warhead or missile in North Korea has been eliminated. The North’s nuclear facilities are still in operation.”

On Sunday, Mr. Trump was ushered into the Demilitarized Zone by President Moon of South Korea — who then sat outside while Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim met. It was a stunning bit of symbolism for those who argue the South has been sidelined in these talks.

Despite the imagery, Mr. Moon’s government sounded optimistic, at least officially.

“Through their meeting today, the South and North Korean leaders and the American leader made history,” Yoon Do-han, Mr. Moon’s chief presidential press secretary, said in a statement following the border meeting.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Restarts China Trade Talks, but the Two Sides Remain Far Apart.

WASHINGTON — A day after agreeing to resume trade talks with China, President Trump and his top advisers said no timeline existed for reaching a deal and suggested that the two sides remained as far apart as they were when talks broke up in May.

The comments came as the administration continued to ease restrictions on China, removing eight companies from the Commerce Department’s blacklist and taking steps to allow Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, to purchase American technology. Those steps, while welcomed by American businesses, fueled concerns among some lawmakers that Mr. Trump was giving away too much in return for vague promises from President Xi Jinping of China to buy more American goods.

“We’re moving along toward a reciprocal but a good trade deal, a fair trade deal,” Mr. Trump said of China during remarks in Seoul, South Korea, on Sunday. “And we’ll see where that goes, but we had a very, very good feelings with President Xi and myself.”

Over the weekend, Mr. Trump told Fox News that Mr. Xi “wants to make a deal. I want to make a deal. Very big deal, probably, I guess you’d say the largest deal ever made of any kind, not only trade.”

The truce reached at the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan, over the weekend will forestall another round of punishing tariffs Mr. Trump had threatened to impose on nearly all Chinese imports. But it did little to resolve the Trump administration’s primary concerns, including its insistence that China agree to codify intellectual property protections and other changes in Chinese law.

The ability to resolve those concerns, including those that led to the breakdown in talks, is only expected to get harder on both sides of the Pacific, as Mr. Trump heads into a re-election campaign and Mr. Xi faces pressure to reinvigorate China’s slowing economy. That political calculus seems to have pushed both leaders to agree to a truce that could perpetuate the trade dispute but prevent an escalation that could destabilize the world’s two largest economies.

Larry Kudlow, the director of the White House National Economic Council, said that no timetable existed for completing negotiations but that the United States was hoping to capitalize on the progress made during talks that broke down in May, which he said had gotten the two countries 90 percent of the way to a deal.

“That 90 percent number is fair, although the last 10 percent could be the toughest,” Mr. Kudlow said on “Fox News Sunday.” “The rest of it is going to go on for quite some time frankly.”

Mr. Trump faces a crosscurrent of pressures at home as his re-election bid shifts into high gear, including signs of a slowing economy. The president, who has staked his re-election on strong economic growth, faces risks from a trade war that has begun to hurt farmers, manufacturers and other businesses with exposure to China.

Yet the president, who has singled China out as an “economic enemy,” is wary of coming away with nothing after two years of bruising negotiations, allowing Democrats to argue that his strategy of using tariffs as pressure was a failure.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_155691099_d7af2803-a54e-4163-9566-7b98e20123d5-articleLarge Trump Restarts China Trade Talks, but the Two Sides Remain Far Apart. Xi Jinping United States Politics and Government United States International Relations United States Economy Trump, Donald J International Trade and World Market Huawei Technologies Co Ltd Economic Conditions and Trends Customs (Tariff) China 5G (Wireless Communications)

The United States has been concerned over China’s efforts to dominate the next generation of wireless technology, known as 5G.CreditHector Retamal/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Republicans are also uncomfortable with the trade war, which has hurt businesses in their home states, making them politically vulnerable. But they are also worried that Mr. Trump will agree to a weak deal and that he bargained away too much when he agreed to let American companies sell technology and parts to the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei less than two months after the Commerce Department labeled it a national security threat.

The administration had essentially blacklisted Huawei over concerns that it posed a national security threat and that its efforts to dominate the next generation of wireless technology, known as 5G, would put America at a disadvantage. Top officials, from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Vice President Mike Pence, have publicly warned that Huawei poses a security threat and urged other nations not to use its telecom equipment.

The United States also removed eight Chinese companies from its entity list last week, including Xiamen Sanan Optoelectronics and Hubei Flying Optical. The technology companies were recently added to the Commerce Department’s red-flag list of “unverified” businesses that American companies should treat with caution.

While it remains unclear exactly what type of technology Huawei will now be allowed to buy from American companies, the fact that the president appeared to be using the telecom giant as a pawn in broader trade negotiations drew swift condemnation from some of his biggest allies in Congress.

[Read about how Huawei loomed large over trade talks.]

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said on Twitter that relaxing the restrictions on Huawei would “destroy the credibility of his administrations warnings about the threat posed by the company” and that such warnings would no longer be taken seriously.

On Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said that fully reopening America’s doors to Huawei was a bad idea.

“I don’t know what he agreed to regarding exceptions to the ban,” Mr. Graham said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “If they’re minor exceptions, that’s O.K., but if we’re selling Huawei major technology, that would be a mistake.”

Mr. Kudlow tried to assuage those concerns on Sunday, telling “Fox News Sunday” that this was not “general amnesty” for Huawei, and that companies would be permitted to conduct business only if there were no national security risks.

He added that while Trump had made significant concessions to China to restart negotiations, Beijing was expected to reciprocate by making “large-scale purchases” of American agricultural products while negotiations continued.

Stock markets around the world were expected to open higher on Monday as a result of the thawing relations. Business groups praised Mr. Trump for backing away from his threat to impose tariffs on an additional $300 billion worth of products from China.

“We are encouraged the talks are restarting and additional tariffs are on hold, and we look forward to getting more detail on the president’s remarks on Huawei,” said John Neuffer, the president of the Semiconductor Industry Association.

The trade war has roiled stock markets around the world, but they were expected to open higher on Monday as a result of the thawing relations.CreditAndy Wong/Associated Press

But the administration’s tariffs on $250 billion worth of imports remain, along with China’s retaliatory tariffs, and uncertainty is growing about whether the trade war will ever fully end. A senior Trump administration official said before the G20 summit that optimism would be tempered after China suddenly backed away from commitments in May. With no timelines for negotiations and only vague promises about Chinese purchases of American agricultural products, the relief that no additional tariffs are imminent could be short-lived.

“It’s a good thing that tariffs have been postponed, but we really need to resolve these structural issues and resolve the tariffs,” said Craig Allen, the president of the U.S.-China Business Council. “The short-term costs we’re paying here are being borne by American companies. The long-term beneficiaries will be the Europeans and the Japanese.”

China faces problems that have made the protracted dispute even more challenging.

China’s debt-laden economy is slowing — and would slow even more if the Chinese government had not encouraged local governments to go on a borrowing binge this year. Growth in industrial production has slackened. Only stringent, police-enforced controls on international movements of money prevent many Chinese from trying to send their savings out of the country to seemingly safer destinations overseas with greater rule of law.

Against that backdrop, Chinese experts were divided this weekend about the outcome of the trade talks between Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi.

Some noted that China had achieved three key goals. It avoided the additional tariffs Mr. Trump had threatened. It gained at least some weakening of the sanctions on Huawei. And it won the resumption of trade talks without having to accept the draft text that had been negotiated by the end of April, which China’s leadership rejected mainly because it required broad changes in the nation’s laws.

“This is a major win for Xi Jinping — it seems like President Trump is willing to make concessions on almost all fronts,” said Bo Zhiyue, the deputy dean of the New Era Development Research Institute at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University in Suzhou, China.

But other features of the agreement provoked grumbles. The truce allows the United States to continue collecting 25 percent tariffs on nearly half its imports from China. And, at least according to Mr. Trump, China agreed to resume buying American farm goods after intermittently halting purchases over the past year to protest Mr. Trump’s tariffs.

Hu Xijin, the outspoken editor of the nationalistic Global Times news outlet, groused on Twitter that the United States was only giving up some restrictions on Huawei that it imposed a month and a half ago. He noted that another concession by Mr. Trump consisted of not imposing further tariffs that he had started threatening only in early May.

“Some Americans still unsatisfied?” he tweeted.

An underlying issue for China is that it is largely dependent on the United States to buy its goods.

Few markets other than the United States appear ready or willing to accept China’s surplus in manufactured goods. The European economy is weak. Many developing countries are deep in debt — partly because of Chinese lending in connection with Mr. Xi’s global infrastructure program, the Belt and Road Initiative — and reluctant or unable to borrow more money.

For those reasons, many of the most vocal China hawks in the United States believe that China has little choice but to strike a deal with the United States and that Mr. Trump is wise to remain patient.

“I think he’s going out of his way to show the American people, capital markets, corporate America and the global corporate community that he’s gone out of his way to get some kind of accommodation out of China,” said Stephen K. Bannon, who is Mr. Trump’s former strategist. “This is deeper than the Cold War, and it’s not going to get done overnight.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ukraine Role Focuses New Attention on Giuliani’s Foreign Work

WASHINGTON — More than two years ago, Pavel Fuks, a wealthy Ukrainian-Russian developer looking for ways to attract more investment from the United States to his hometown, Kharkiv, Ukraine, enlisted an especially well-connected American to help him: Rudolph W. Giuliani.

Mr. Fuks, who years earlier had discussed a Moscow tower project with Donald J. Trump, hired Mr. Giuliani, who in 2018 would become the president’s personal lawyer, under a one-year deal to help improve Kharkiv’s emergency services and bolster its image as a destination for investment.

“I would call him the lobbyist for Kharkiv and Ukraine — this is stated in the contract,” Mr. Fuks said in an interview in March for an episode of The New York Times’s television show, “The Weekly.” Mr. Fuks added: “It is very important for me that such person as Giuliani tells people that we are a good country, that people can do business with us. That’s what we would like to bring to America’s leaders.”

Mr. Fuks’s description of Mr. Giuliani as a lobbyist further highlighted a controversy over what some Democrats say is a pattern by Mr. Giuliani of providing influence with the Trump administration. Some Democrats have asked whether Mr. Giuliani’s role working in a number of foreign countries fits the legal definition of lobbying and requires him to register as a foreign agent, something Mr. Giuliani has not done.

Mr. Giuliani rejected the use of the word lobbyist to describe his work for Mr. Fuks. “That makes it sounds like I lobbied the U.S. government, which I never did,” he said.

Mr. Giuliani acknowledged that he did lobby Petro O. Poroshenko, who was then the president of Ukraine. But he said that was to pitch a plan developed by his consulting firm, Giuliani Security and Safety, and funded by Mr. Fuks, to put into place emergency management improvements, including a 911-like platform in Kharkiv, where the mayor, Gennady A. Kernes, is a close ally of Mr. Fuks.

Mr. Giuliani traveled to Ukraine for the project, touring the site of a Holocaust memorial in the capital, Kiev, spearheaded by Mr. Fuks as well as appearing at an event in Kharkiv to highlight the plan. “After I finished in Kharkiv, I spent an hour with Poroshenko, which turned into two hours,” he said. “I presented him with the plan.”

ImageWestlake Legal Group 30dc-rudy-2-articleLarge Ukraine Role Focuses New Attention on Giuliani’s Foreign Work Zelensky, Volodymyr United States Politics and Government United States International Relations Trump, Donald J Poroshenko, Petro Olekseyevich Lobbying and Lobbyists Kharkiv (Ukraine) Giuliani, Rudolph W

Mr. Giuliani, now the president’s personal lawyer, rejected the use of the word lobbyist to describe his work for Mr. Fuks.CreditJulio Cortez/Associated Press

Mr. Giuliani said the contract did not call for him to seek American investment, and he did not do so. The Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, requires Americans to detail payments they receive from foreign governments, politicians or parties for lobbying or public relations work in the United States, but not for legal representation or work done solely overseas.

Mr. Giuliani’s overseas work in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South America has drawn criticism from Democrats, who contend it is difficult to separate that work from his close relationship with the president.

That criticism escalated when The Times revealed in May that he was planning to travel to Kiev to urge Volodymyr Zelensky, then the nation’s president-elect, to pursue inquiries into matters that could help Mr. Trump.

Senator Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, in a letter asking the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to investigate, accused Mr. Giuliani of “operating a shadow foreign policy apparatus aimed at influencing upcoming U.S. elections.”

Mr. Giuliani quickly canceled the trip, though he argued that the efforts to influence Ukrainian investigations were related only to his representation of the president and not to his foreign consulting or Mr. Fuks.

Mr. Fuks earned an estimated $270 million in the post-Soviet real estate boom in Moscow, and negotiated with Mr. Trump around 2006 or 2007 over a possible licensing agreement for a Trump Tower in Moscow. After months of negotiations, the deal fell through when Mr. Fuks refused to agree to Mr. Trump’s asking price.

Since then, Mr. Fuks has fallen out of favor in Russia and been included on a sanctions list by the Kremlin.

He has aligned himself more closely with Ukraine, while trying to court influential connections in Washington. He says in the episode of “The Weekly” that he paid $200,000 for V.I.P. access to Mr. Trump’s inauguration, but never received the promised tickets.

Since then, he has been barred from traveling to the United States, and has sued the lobbyist who brokered his inauguration trip.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The U.S. and China Are Talking Trade Again. But They’re Still Far Apart.

WASHINGTON — A day after agreeing to resume trade talks with China, President Trump and his top advisers said no timeline existed for reaching a deal and suggested that the two sides remained as far apart as they were when talks broke up in May.

The comments came as the administration continued to ease restrictions on China, removing eight companies from the Commerce Department’s blacklist and taking steps to allow Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, to purchase American technology. Those steps, while welcomed by American businesses, fueled concerns among some lawmakers that Mr. Trump was giving away too much in return for vague promises from President Xi Jinping of China to buy more American goods.

“We’re moving along toward a reciprocal but a good trade deal, a fair trade deal,” Mr. Trump said of China during remarks in Seoul, South Korea, on Sunday. “And we’ll see where that goes, but we had a very, very good feelings with President Xi and myself.”

The truce reached at the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan, over the weekend will forestall another round of punishing tariffs Mr. Trump had threatened to impose on nearly all Chinese imports. But it did little to resolve the Trump administration’s primary concerns, including its insistence that China agree to codify intellectual property protections and other changes in Chinese law.

The ability to resolve those concerns, including those that led to the breakdown in talks, is only expected to get harder on both sides of the Pacific, as Mr. Trump heads into a re-election campaign and Mr. Xi faces pressure to reinvigorate China’s slowing economy. That political calculus seems to have pushed both leaders to agree to a truce that could perpetuate the trade dispute but prevent an escalation that could destabilize the world’s two largest economies.

Larry Kudlow, the director of the White House National Economic Council, said that no timetable existed for completing negotiations but that the United States was hoping to capitalize on the progress made during talks that broke down in May, which he said had gotten the two countries 90 percent of the way to a deal.

“That 90 percent number is fair, although the last 10 percent could be the toughest,” Mr. Kudlow said on “Fox News Sunday.” “The rest of it is going to go on for quite some time frankly.”

Mr. Trump faces a crosscurrent of pressures at home as his re-election bid shifts into high gear, including signs of a slowing economy. The president, who has staked his re-election on strong economic growth, faces risks from a trade war that has begun to hurt farmers, manufacturers and other businesses with exposure to China.

Yet the president, who has singled China out as an “economic enemy,” is wary of coming away with nothing after two years of bruising negotiations, allowing Democrats to argue that his strategy of using tariffs as pressure was a failure.

Republicans are also uncomfortable with the trade war, which has hurt businesses in their home states, making them politically vulnerable. But they are also worried that Mr. Trump will agree to a weak deal and that he bargained away too much when he agreed to let American companies sell technology and parts to the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei less than two months after the Commerce Department labeled it a national security threat.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_155691099_d7af2803-a54e-4163-9566-7b98e20123d5-articleLarge The U.S. and China Are Talking Trade Again. But They’re Still Far Apart. Xi Jinping United States Politics and Government United States International Relations United States Economy Trump, Donald J International Trade and World Market Huawei Technologies Co Ltd Economic Conditions and Trends Customs (Tariff) China 5G (Wireless Communications)

The United States has been concerned over China’s efforts to dominate the next generation of wireless technology, known as 5G.CreditHector Retamal/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The administration had essentially blacklisted Huawei over concerns that it posed a national security threat and that its efforts to dominate the next generation of wireless technology, known as 5G, would put America at a disadvantage. Top officials, from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Vice President Mike Pence, have publicly warned that Huawei poses a security threat and urged other nations not to use its telecom equipment.

The United States also removed eight Chinese companies from its entity list last week, including Xiamen Sanan Optoelectronics and Hubei Flying Optical. The technology companies were recently added to the Commerce Department’s red-flag list of “unverified” businesses that American companies should treat with caution.

While it remains unclear exactly what type of technology Huawei will now be allowed to buy from American companies, the fact that the president appeared to be using the telecom giant as a pawn in broader trade negotiations drew swift condemnation from some of his biggest allies in Congress.

[Read about how Huawei loomed large over trade talks.]

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said on Twitter that relaxing the restrictions on Huawei would “destroy the credibility of his administrations warnings about the threat posed by the company” and that such warnings would no longer be taken seriously.

On Sunday, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said that fully reopening America’s doors to Huawei was a bad idea.

“I don’t know what he agreed to regarding exceptions to the ban,” Mr. Graham said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “If they’re minor exceptions, that’s O.K., but if we’re selling Huawei major technology, that would be a mistake.”

Mr. Kudlow tried to assuage those concerns on Sunday, telling “Fox News Sunday” that this was not “general amnesty” for Huawei, and that companies would be permitted to conduct business only if there were no national security risks.

He added that while Trump had made significant concessions to China to restart negotiations, Beijing was expected to reciprocate by making “large-scale purchases” of American agricultural products while negotiations continued.

Stock markets around the world were expected to open higher on Monday as a result of the thawing relations. Business groups praised Mr. Trump for backing away from his threat to impose tariffs on an additional $300 billion worth of products from China.

“We are encouraged the talks are restarting and additional tariffs are on hold, and we look forward to getting more detail on the president’s remarks on Huawei,” said John Neuffer, the president of the Semiconductor Industry Association.

But the administration’s tariffs on $250 billion worth of imports remain, along with China’s retaliatory tariffs, and uncertainty is growing about whether the trade war will ever fully end. A senior Trump administration official said before the G20 summit that optimism would be tempered after China suddenly backed away from commitments in May. With no timelines for negotiations and only vague promises about Chinese purchases of American agricultural products, the relief that no additional tariffs are imminent could be short-lived.

The trade war has roiled stock markets around the world, but they were expected to open higher on Monday as a result of the thawing relations.CreditAndy Wong/Associated Press

“It’s a good thing that tariffs have been postponed, but we really need to resolve these structural issues and resolve the tariffs,” said Craig Allen, the president of the U.S.-China Business Council. “The short-term costs we’re paying here are being borne by American companies. The long-term beneficiaries will be the Europeans and the Japanese.”

China faces problems that have made the protracted dispute even more challenging.

China’s debt-laden economy is slowing — and would slow even more if the Chinese government had not encouraged local governments to go on a borrowing binge this year. Growth in industrial production has slackened. Only stringent, police-enforced controls on international movements of money prevent many Chinese from trying to send their savings out of the country to seemingly safer destinations overseas with greater rule of law.

Against that backdrop, Chinese experts were divided this weekend about the outcome of the trade talks between Mr. Trump and Mr. Xi.

Some noted that China had achieved three key goals. It avoided the additional tariffs Mr. Trump had threatened. It gained at least some weakening of the sanctions on Huawei. And it won the resumption of trade talks without having to accept the draft text that had been negotiated by the end of April, which China’s leadership rejected mainly because it required broad changes in the nation’s laws.

“This is a major win for Xi Jinping — it seems like President Trump is willing to make concessions on almost all fronts,” said Bo Zhiyue, the deputy dean of the New Era Development Research Institute at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University in Suzhou, China.

But other features of the agreement provoked grumbles. The truce allows the United States to continue collecting 25 percent tariffs on nearly half its imports from China. And, at least according to Mr. Trump, China agreed to resume buying American farm goods after intermittently halting purchases over the past year to protest Mr. Trump’s tariffs.

Hu Xijin, the outspoken editor of the nationalistic Global Times news outlet, groused on Twitter that the United States was only giving up some restrictions on Huawei that it imposed a month and a half ago. He noted that another concession by Mr. Trump consisted of not imposing further tariffs that he had started threatening only in early May.

“Some Americans still unsatisfied?” he tweeted.

An underlying issue for China is that it is largely dependent on the United States to buy its goods.

Few markets other than the United States appear ready or willing to accept China’s surplus in manufactured goods. The European economy is weak. Many developing countries are deep in debt — partly because of Chinese lending in connection with Mr. Xi’s global infrastructure program, the Belt and Road Initiative — and reluctant or unable to borrow more money.

For those reasons, many of the most vocal China hawks in the United States believe that China has little choice but to strike a deal with the United States and that Mr. Trump is wise to remain patient.

“I think he’s going out of his way to show the American people, capital markets, corporate America and the global corporate community that he’s gone out of his way to get some kind of accommodation out of China,” said Stephen K. Bannon, who is Mr. Trump’s former strategist. “This is deeper than the Cold War, and it’s not going to get done overnight.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com