The diplomatic path of dialogue has also been consistently urged by Russia and China.
If one hasn't already been overwhelmed with positive development, then here's one more thing.
Next week, the South Korean President Moon Jae-In is due to hold a summit with Kim in which the two leaders are prepared to explore the signing of a full peace treaty to mark the end of the Korean War (1950-53). That meeting will the first of its kind between two Korean leaders in more than a decade.
Never before has a full peace treaty been broached at such a senior Korean government level. For the past 65 years since the end of the war, the two Koreas have coexisted in a technical state of war, restrained only by an armistice or truce. That situation has been historically fraught with concerns of a return to full-blown war.
Furthermore, President Trump has said he gives "my blessing" to the inter-Korean talks next week aimed at negotiating a definitive peace treaty. No sitting American president over the past six decades has acknowledged the issue of signing a peace treaty, let alone endorsing it.
The US was a main belligerent in that war, siding with its ally South Korea against the Communist North. Any peace treaty would involve the US signing up to it, along with South and North Korea, as well as China which backed the latter in the war.
Unfortunately, this is where the goodwill on display so far may become unstuck.
Trump says he welcomes North Korea's offer of engaging in talks for "denuclearization" -- that is, to dismantle its nuclear weapons program. But North Korea will want proper exchange for such a momentous move.
A full peace treaty over the Korean War is one such reasonable demand. That could then pave the way for the eventual unification of the two Koreas, which many people on the Peninsula have long desired, including the present leaders on both sides of the Demilitarized Zone.
But a peace treaty also implies that the US withdraws all its forces from the Korean Peninsula. Currently, there are some 30,000 US troops stationed in South Korea. There has been an American military presence on the peninsula since the end of the Second World War.
Every year, the US conducts large-scale military maneuvers with South Korean forces in the air and waters around the peninsula. This has long been a cause of animus in North Korea which views the "war games" as rehearsals for the resumption of war.
The fundamental issue is that American strategy for power and influence in Asia-Pacific towards perceived chief rivals Russia and China depends on the US military having a foothold on the Korean Peninsula. It therefore seems deeply counter-intuitive that US geopolitical planners would be prepared to surrender their Korean power-projection point.
President Trump has so far, surprisingly, shown goodwill to talks with North Korea and the search for peace.
But when Washington realizes that a genuine peace settlement involves the complete withdrawal of American military forces from Korea, Trump's thumbs-up is likely to become inverted.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
