U.S. President Donald Trump [Photo/Xinhua]

In 1983, Europe was facing the prospect of nuclear annihilation. After the military exercise of Operation Able Archer, which spooked the Soviets to the core, Ronald Reagan was savaged by liberals in United States to have massively underestimated the ability of Soviets to misunderstand things, as the Soviets perceived world events from their perspective. 

The Soviet Union was then obviously shut off from the outside world. Within three years, of course, Ronald Reagan met with Gorbachev at the Reykjavik summit, in 1986. This time it was the conservatives who were opposed as they thought Reagan was capitulating to the Soviets. Ultimately, it resulted in the intermediate range missile treaty. And both Reagan and Gorbachev are considered visionary now. Sometimes random events change and shape human history, despite a mass of conventional wisdom against it. 

Something similar is happening with the U.S. and North Korea. I wrote just last week how there's no other option than to talk to North Korea. Within a week, incredible developments took place and what it now seemingly likely that the U.S. and North Korea are  heading towards a summit, and that's a situation that should be welcomed. My suggestion is, do not miss this opportunity to lead a breakthrough in one of the most intractable problems of geopolitics. Trump calls himself a deal maker and won the presidency to solve problems. This is a chance for a lifetime legacy. 

There's of course a lot of steps needed before this reaches fruition. As the now former Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson was quoted to say, "There will be several steps necessary to agree on location, agree on the scope of those discussions. It's very early stages. We've not heard anything directly back from North Korea but we expect to hear something directly from them." The venue is important, neutral countries like Switzerland would be an ideal locale for this type of meeting.

The second thing is to keep the interests of other powers in mind. Even as a bilateral meeting, it won't just be of concern to the U.S. and North Korea. Naturally the stakes are high. South Korea for example is doing its best to make sure the summit is a success. The stakes are highest for Seoul. South Korean officials met with Russian and Chinese counterparts. A South Korean envoy also updated Chinese President Xi Jinping as part of an effort to update regional partners. An envoy also met with the Japanese PM Shinzo Abe. President Xi was quoted to have said that China "supports the U.S.-DPRK talks" and that S. Korea's efforts have made great progress in the overall Korean Peninsula situation. 

There was also a call between U.S. and China. "The two leaders welcomed the prospect of a dialogue between the United States and North Korea and committed to maintain pressure and sanctions until North Korea takes tangible steps toward complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization," an official White House statement mentioned.

What could we logically expect from this meeting? Nothing much in all honestly. Breakthroughs are not achieved easily. Plus, the two leaders in question are both volatile and meeting for the first time. They have a lot of expectations and they both want to maintain their tough image. 

That said, this might bring back an old but very important conservative theory in question. Can one individual leader change the course of history? Both these leaders have a propensity of deal making, and it must be on Trump's mind especially how important it would make him, if he could become the one to solve the Korean crisis forever. If the two hit it off on the first instance, there is a possibility of a huge breakthrough if not this time, in the coming summits. This is a good start and might lead to lots of possibilities. In any case, there is no other alternative than dialogue and coexisting. War isn't a sane option. 

Sumantra Maitra is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/SumantraMaitra.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors only, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.