Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Korean Dilemma

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A comparison of this summit to previous ones

    Why This Wasn't Kim's Father's — or Grandfather's — Summit | Jun 13 2018

    Comment


    • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      You must be shitting me with this. ALL THAT IS ACHIEVED AT THIS POINT IS GOOD WILL. Nobody got nothing! Not Trump. Not Fat Boy.
      Pretty much my read on it, but OTOH that just means the situation can quickly deteriorate the moment NK feels it's to their advantage do so.
      "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

      Comment


      • For the moment, the threat of war on the Korean penisula has receded. That is something to be appreciated.

        Something else. KJU replaced 2 corps commanders just before the summit. This late into his reign, he still doesn't have generals he can trust. Makes you wonder who can he trust with commanding the nukes.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • For the moment, the threat of war on the Korean penisula has receded. That is something to be appreciated.
          should not have required a US Presidential visit nor the POTUS loose talk to achieve...especially if the maximum pressure campaign had Kim over a barrel.

          but yeah, i'll agree that even stupid diplomatic talk is better than nuclear brinksmanship.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • Originally posted by astralis View Post
            should not have required a US Presidential visit nor the POTUS loose talk to achieve...especially if the maximum pressure campaign had Kim over a barrel.
            It was that loose talk that resulted in the maximum pressure. I remind you that the Chinese only took up sanctions when they believed Trump was actually going to war.
            Chimo

            Comment


            • Trump says Kim Jong-un 'speaks and his people sit up in attention. I want my people to do the same'
              The comment comes just after Mr Trump saluted a North Korean general

              The Independent, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8400571.html


              US President Donald Trump has said that he would like US citizens to "sit up in attention" when he talks, in the same way North Korea's people do when their leader Kim Jong-un speaks.

              The president was speaking about his relationship with the North Korean dictator, who has been accused of numerous human rights violations by the United Nations and watchdog groups.


              "He speaks and his people sit up in attention. I want my people to do the same," Mr Trump said of Mr Kim during an interview on Fox News' 'Fox & Friends' while standing on the lawn outside of the White House. Later in the morning, Mr Trump told other news outlets he was "kidding" about the comment.

              In the free-ranging interview, Mr Trump also said that he "think[s] it's great to give [Mr Kim] credibility," adding that the US has "a very good relationship with North Korea... we have a really great relationship" in response to criticism that he saluted a North Korean general while he was in Singapore earlier this week for the historic summit with Mr Kim.


              The video footage had not been released by the White House and US media were not aware of it until North Korean state-run media had revealed it.
              Mr Trump, a father of five, said he would spend Father's Day this year "calling North Korea," but did not specify what the conversation would entail nor if it would be a direct conversation with Mr Kim.


              The president then moved over to a full gaggle of reporters also waiting on the White House lawn for him to continue answering questions. When asked why he appeared to be defending the North Korean regime despite the many accusations of human rights violations but also fervently speaking about the death of American Otto Warmbier while being held in a North Korean prison, Mr Trump said "you know why? because I don't want to see a nuclear weapon destroy you and your family".
              Trust me?
              I'm an economist!

              Comment


              • Trump wants Korean reunification ?

                Donald Trump’s secret service — is Korea’s reunification in fact his real aim? | Daily O | Jun 14 2018

                In the first twenty four hours after the summit, the internet has been flooded by a barrage of supercilious criticism from the American policy elite.

                A senior international relations scholar told the TV channel CNN that summit meetings are not meant to be hijacked by the interlocutors. Summits are built from below. They are not constructed from the top!

                This is precisely the kind of intellectual arrogance of the policy elite, the organisational and intellectual sherpas who imagine they are the architects of summit meetings, that popular politicians with a mind of their own detest. While most intellectuals remain skeptical about Mr Trump’s "mind", the fact is that he went to the Cappella Hotel determined to do it his way. Perhaps even his closest aides were surprised by some of the things he said at the press conference.

                Summits are not about dotting the Is and crossing the Ts in a public document. That is what diplomats do, media reports and analysts discuss. A meaningful summit is more often than not the starting point of a process, not its end-point. It is a top-down process, not bottom-up.

                The US policy establishment, both government agencies and the policy elite outside government may well have been focused on North Korea’s denuclearisation.

                Is that really a political priority for a US President?

                Does the timetable of Korean denuclearisation really matter to the US?

                What is the real strategic priority for the US in East Asia?

                To denuclearise North Korea, leaving China and Russia as the only nuclear powers in that corner of the world?

                To weaken defence relations with allies like South Korea and Japan, leaving China as the dominant power in the region?

                Does the US policy elite really think President Trump doesn’t get it?

                Is Trump crazy — or is there a method to his apparent madness?

                Studying President’s Trump’s politics and policies during the first two years in office I am convinced that he is a Big Picture guy who leaves the details to his trusted aides — if the aides do not deliver (like his former Secretary of State and National Security Advisor), he just changes his aides like one would change one’s clothes.

                For President Trump, the Singapore Summit was not just about denuclearisation and reducing the level of US defence spending in the region, forcing regional allies like Japan and South Korea to spend more. Incidentally, when he was asked at the press conference as to who would bear the cost of North Korean denuclearisation, his reply was prompt — “Japan, South Korea and China”. After all, they would all be the immediate beneficiaries of a nuke-less Pyongyang.

                The Singapore Summit must be viewed against the backdrop of long-term changes underway in Asia and US strategy to deal with them. While China has welcomed the outcome of the summit, it must worry about the new Trump-Kim bonhomie. The normalisation of relations between the US and North Korea, following the new reconciliation process between the two Koreas, could well unleash the underlying peninsula-wide sentiment for reunification.

                The Korean people, like the Germans in Europe, derive pride from their long history. Like the Germans, the Koreans too trace their cultural origins and ethnic identity to the 1st Century BC. After twenty centuries of a shared civilisational identity, the Korean people were divided into two political entities in the middle of the 20th Century.

                The Germans were fortunate to have ended their division a quarter century ago, at the end of the Cold War. Alas, the Koreans have not been so lucky thus far.

                What the two Koreas need is a supportive global and regional environment.

                Among all the major powers only the US would benefit, strategically, from Korean unification.

                Is it at all possible that President Trump believed that in Singapore earlier this week, he was not really initiating the process of Korean denuclearisation but of Korean reunification?

                Was he looking at the next few months — or the next few years?

                Was the meeting with President Kim part of a wider and long-term strategy to, in fact, reinforce US influence, if not presence, in the region?

                Those who climb a summit have a view of the world that is very different from those who live in the lower hills, the valleys and the plains. One wonders what Mr Trump and Mr Kim saw on the horizon when they stood tall at their summit.
                Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Jun 18,, 13:37.

                Comment


                • Pure speculation. Neither SKorea nor NKorea are anywhere near ready for unification.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • The surprising part is he questions whether denuclearisation really matters to the US. All i've heard to date is how important it was.

                    The US policy establishment, both government agencies and the policy elite outside government may well have been focused on North Korea’s denuclearisation.

                    Is that really a political priority for a US President?

                    Does the timetable of Korean denuclearisation really matter to the US?

                    What is the real strategic priority for the US in East Asia?
                    The timetable is estimated to be 10-15 years. Seems an awfully long time for Trump to be so keen

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                      The surprising part is he questions whether denuclearisation really matters to the US. All i've heard to date is how important it was.

                      The timetable is estimated to be 10-15 years. Seems an awfully long time for Trump to be so keen
                      Just idiots who don't know squat. Shutting down the reactors takes 3 months. Dismantling a warhead to its raw parts takes 8 weeks. A rocket can be disbaled by cutting a fuel line. Getting the accounting done. That's the hard part. It took the Chinese 5 years to get their books to IAEA standards to account for all their fissile materials.

                      Disabling the nuclear arsenal can be done overnight. Dismantling it would take at most 3 years. The accounting? As long as the bookworms want it.

                      Now, the $64mil question. Does Fat Boy really want to disarm?
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • Disarm in exchange for what ? that is the part that needs to be hashed out and will be lengthy. Right now its a freeze for freeze

                        I don't think China getting books to IAEA standards in just 5 years is at all relevant because there never was a denuclearise condition imposed on China to begin with. China got to keep nukes and if the path to normalisation meant swift compliance with international standards then the incentive to get it done was there.

                        As for accounting getting NK to declare what they have ? maybe conditions could be created to allow that declaration. It would yield more info than is currently known which would then have to be verified in compliance with whatever agreements are made

                        The part i'm still mulling is reunification. That's another overloaded word like denuclearisation. What does reunification mean. At the simplest level it could mean better relations and trade with the south and then follow whatever is agreeable by Korean Institute for National Unification (KINU)

                        Who benefits from reunification, long term? If its done on NK terms China benefits, if the south gets its way then Japan. But this is short term only.

                        Long term both China & Japan are less well off.

                        Korea comes together after a short separation. You would think the US would be better off but its not clear how the alliance with Korea stands at that point.
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jun 18,, 06:38.

                        Comment


                        • Reunification only happens when the Kim family is removed from power or takes control of the whole peninsula. Neither seems likely in the short term. Even if the first happens AND China gets out of the way it is not an easy road.
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • Kim said "denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula could be achieved when South Korea and the U.S. would respond to our efforts with good intention and stable atmosphere for promoting peace is created through a series of progressive and synchronous measures.”

                            What does "progressive and synchronous measures” mean ? From KINU

                            Road Map to Peace on the Korean Peninsula.pdf | KINU | Jun 07 2018

                            there are two types of settlement methods; a ‘partial settlement’ on a specific agenda, and a comprehensive ‘package settlement’ for multiple agendas ― the so-called ‘one-shot’ solution. President Moon Jae-in has insisted the latter and so has the Trump administration. Chairman Kim Jong-un has also expressed his support for a comprehensive package settlement. Therefore, it seems evident that thus far all three parties have neither expressed any differing opinions on a method of settlement nor refused a package settlement.

                            What is important is the implementation process after a package settlement, through which denuclearization signing of a peace treaty normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations can be agreed upon in the North Korea-U.S. summit. The three main scenarios can be analyzed as follows

                            Type 1: Denuclearization first and ensuring the survival of the regime later (peace treaty normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations)
                            Not applicable

                            Type 2: Synchronous implementation of denuclearization - signing of a peace treaty - normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations

                            Measures for implementation of denuclearization signing of a peace treaty normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations can be simultaneously carried out step-by-step. Each track can be gradually and synchronously implemented in a certain order with the possible slight time lags in between implementation. This is what Kim Jong-un meant by a progressive and synchronous implementation.

                            Type 3: Reverse-synchronous implementation of normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations signing of a peace treaty-denuclearization

                            In this case, the order of implementation will be reversed. Measures for normalization of North Korea-the U.S. relations and negotiations for signing a peace treaty will be carried out first, followed by measures for denuclearization. The order will be arranged in a reversed manner compared to the U.S. usual denuclearization-first approach. This method, too, will be synchronously implemented. The only difference lies in the fact that the incentives associated with the security guarantee of the North Korean regime will be given first in order to clearly give the North a motivation for denuclearization.

                            In fact, those 3 types of implementation methods, contrary to the settlement methods, are hard to be achieved in ‘one-shot,’ and should be carried out in a progressive manner according to respective action plans. To that end, Kim Jong-un’s mentioning of progressive and synchronous measures resembles the above explained Type 2 and Type 3 in terms of implementation methods. His approach also reflects reasonable and realistic aspects so it does not conflict with South Korea’s approach.
                            The paper then advocates declaring peace so as to create momentum to either a type 2 or 3 type settlement that is time bound, within 60 days say, otherwise...

                            after a package settlement, discussing and agreeing upon a general implementation road map generally takes up too much time. This fast pace will allow for a prompt formulation of working group for the initial measures and speedy progress of the future action plans. Same approach could also be included in the agreement at the North Korea-U.S. summit. In the end, it is a strategy utilizing ‘Declaration for Peace on the Korean Peninsula’ as a momentum that links an implementation road map with the inter-Korean summit and the North Korea-U.S. summit.
                            Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jun 18,, 14:05.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                              Reunification only happens when the Kim family is removed from power or takes control of the whole peninsula. Neither seems likely in the short term. Even if the first happens AND China gets out of the way it is not an easy road.
                              It appears to be a gradual affair as explained in this paper

                              If unification can be understood as ‘overcoming the division’ in which the nation, state, and territory are united, on the other hand, integration is ‘overcoming the internal fragmentation’ within the Korean society, with a ‘harmonization and convergence’ of various sectors between North and South Korea. While unification is an event that is clearly definable in political and legal terms in a specific historic moment, integration refers to the degree of each sector’s internal unity and stages of interfusion.

                              What is the relationship between unification and integration? Until now, South Korea has adopted a gradual and step-by-step approach to the issue regarding Korean unification on the logical basis of ‘integration before unification.’

                              In other words, ‘(low-level) integration → unification → (high-level) integration.’

                              This reflects the position that a ‘de facto’ unification should first be promoted through the integration of a communitarian lifestyle prior to a ‘legal and institutional (de jure)’ unification.

                              Based on this logic, inter-Korean exchanges and cooperation have been emphasized in order to integrate economic and socio-cultural sectors and the need for peace establishment has been magnified to enlarge such exchange and cooperation.
                              Then about how to deal with Kim and his cronies ?

                              the regime evolution of North Korea should be induced and changes in political leadership should be pursued. To this end, an ‘exit’ should be provided to ease the anxiety over the future for the North Korea’s ruling elites.
                              Why ?

                              It has been long since North Korea’s ruling elites have lost the will and capability to be responsible for the survival and future of its people. Thus, we cannot but put efforts to take responsibility for the lives and future of our North Korean compatriots
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Jun 18,, 14:00.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                                I don't think China getting books to IAEA standards in just 5 years is at all relevant because there never was a denuclearise condition imposed on China to begin with. China got to keep nukes and if the path to normalisation meant swift compliance with international standards then the incentive to get it done was there.

                                As for accounting getting NK to declare what they have ? maybe conditions could be created to allow that declaration. It would yield more info than is currently known which would then have to be verified in compliance with whatever agreements are made
                                The point about Chinese books and IAEA books is in fact about compliance. China's entry into the NPT had to be verified. Do recall that at one point, we estimated that they had 600-1000 warheads. Imagine our surprise when they said they had less than 100. Thus, began the long journey of correlating our estimates with their actual output.

                                We knew these factories were operating at so many years and based on that, there should be x amount of fissile materials. Where are the fissile materials?

                                Thus began the long journey of correlating their data with our estimates. To put a final note to this, China has enough fissile materials for around 400 warheads but has around 200 warheads in their arsenal.

                                The process with North Korea would be no less daunting. I am NOT of the opinion that they have 40-60 warheads but that is where the IAEA will start with their correlation.
                                Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 18 Jun 18,, 17:49.
                                Chimo

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X