General North Korea thread

[Dominus Atheos]

This is getting off topic but...

Trump would only consider it a victory if he could convince himself that he was directly responsible and that it happened under his terms. Trump is not a good negotiator, he just demands whatever random thing pops into his head, and people just ignore it, make their own deal, and Trump accepts it and declares victory. Trump could certainly consider reunification to be his victory because he's an idiot with no idea what's going on, but it's clearly not his goal or any part of his plans and if it did happen it would be 100% in spite of Trump, which I would call his defeat.

[Dominus Atheos]

If you are trying desperately to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but then trip over yourself and miss, that's not really a victory is it?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Given the timing, it seems pretty obvious to me that Trump and his supporters WOULD consider him directly responsible for it. The narrative would be that his tough stance scared the North Koreans so much that they surrendered to reunification without a shot having to be fired (due to the economic disparity, any reunification would be a de facto South Korean victory since they would immediately dominate the unified political scene, and a South Korean victory is in turn an American one, as an ally).

[The Romulan Republic]

That's the one obvious downside to it, I guess. I don't think anything that could potentially legitimize Trump as a successful, mainstream President would be good for the country's (or the world's) future political health and stability.

[Patroklos]

You are really that pathologically anti-Trump that you think the freeing of 25 million people from essentially slavery, the resolution of a half century long conflict, the elimination of the only nuclear war flash point left on the globe, the reunion of one of the worlds great cultures and peoples and the precedent of it all happening through a peaceful reconciliation is not worth it because one world leader who will be a nobody in max less than seven years might get some credit and validation?

Fuck you're a sick cookie.

[The Romulan Republic]

You are really that pathologically anti-Trump that you think the freeing of 25 million people from essentially slavery, the resolution of a half century long conflict, the elimination of the only nuclear war flash point left on the globe, the reunion of one of the worlds great cultures and peoples and the precedent of it all happening through a peaceful reconciliation is not worth it because one world leader who will be a nobody in max less than seven years might get some credit and validation?

Fuck you're a sick cookie.

I did not say that. I said that it was a downside, not that that downside outweighed the upside.

I expect you to retract, and apologize for, your libel immediately. Actually, no, I don't, but its what you would do if you had any shame.

[Patroklos]

You did nothing of the sort. You made no mention of upsides at all, let alone it outweighing any downsides.

And then you continued with " I don't think anything that could potentially legitimize Trump as a successful, mainstream President would be good for the country's (or the world's)"

So its not just this amazingly beneficial to everyone NK scenario that you would eschew in favor of denying Trump a win. Its literally ANYTHING.

[The Romulan Republic]

You did nothing of the sort. You made no mention of upsides at all, let alone it outweighing any downsides.

I posted that as part of an ongoing conversation on the possibility of NK/SK unity. Go back to the previous page and read my (very positive) comment on the possibility.

And then you continued with " I don't think anything that could potentially legitimize Trump as a successful, mainstream President would be good for the country's"

What, do you think that legitimizing Trump's behavior as an acceptable way to conduct diplomacy would be a GOOD thing for future political stability? Or that Trump being accepted as part of the new mainstream would be a POSITIVE development in American politics?

You know, you always insist you're not a loyal Trumper- yet you always defend his policies, and attack his critics.

So its not just this amazingly beneficial to everyone NK scenario that you would eschew in favor of denying Trump a win. Its literally ANYTHING.

I think that anything that benefits Trump and Trumpism will consequently do harm to the political and social fabric of the US, and international stability, yes.

Weather the pros would outweigh the cons depends on how much it would benefit him, and how big the gains would be to justify it.

No reasonable person would interpret my post the way you did, unless they were looking for an excuse to attack me personally, or misrepresent my argument. I have stated repeatedly the actual intent behind my post, for the benefit of simple minds. You want to back away from this line of argument.

[Patroklos]

I posted that as part of an ongoing conversation on the possibility of NK/SK unity. Go back to the previous page and read my (very positive) comment on the possibility.

Your comment stands on its own as it outright qualifies any net outcome as overall negative for country AND the world. Your words.

What, do you think that legitimizing Trump's behavior as an acceptable way to conduct diplomacy would be a GOOD thing for future political stability? Or that Trump being accepted as part of the new mainstream would be a POSITIVE development in American politics?

In the wash after ending one of the worlds most dangerous and intractable probelms BLOODLESSLY. Fuck, there is probably nobody on Earth I would refuse to legitimize for that outcome. There is almost no means I would not have to grudgingly accept as acceptable with that result.

You know, you always insist you're not a loyal Trumper- yet you always defend his policies, and attack his critics.

This isn't defending Trump, I have praised no specific policy. This is accepting a stupendously beneficial outcome for all as desirable over almost all else.

In your usual fashion you are in your my team vs their team mentality, willing to impoverish everyone including yourself as long as you can perceive a win.

I think that anything that benefits Trump and Trumpism will consequently do harm to the political and social fabric of the US, and international stability, yes.

That's kind of a stupid thing to say if you think Trump and Trumpism would in any way have contributed to the hypothetical results, which would be pretty hard refute. What other variable has so drastically changed in the last year that you would lay such a drastic turn around by NK at its feet? This is a scenario where we already know the results TRR, its like if you knew the stock price the day before. We know the return is outsized up front. What exactly do you think Trump could do that would make it not worth it?

Weather the pros would outweigh the cons depends on how much it would benefit him, and how big the gains would be to justify it.

Your comment provided no such nuance.

No reasonable person would interpret my post the way you did, unless they were looking for an excuse to attack me personally, or misrepresent my argument. I have stated repeatedly the actual intent behind my post, for the benefit of simple minds. You want to back away from this line of argument.

You said what you said, if you want to clarify fine but this whole "woe is me you should know what I want to say even when I don't actually say it" routine was tired the first thousand times you trotted it. Take responsibility for your comments.

[Dragon Angel]

You are really that pathologically anti-Trump that you think the freeing of 25 million people from essentially slavery, the resolution of a half century long conflict, the elimination of the only nuclear war flash point left on the globe, the reunion of one of the worlds great cultures and peoples and the precedent of it all happening through a peaceful reconciliation is not worth it because one world leader who will be a nobody in max less than seven years might get some credit and validation?

Fuck you're a sick cookie.

I'm not really in the habit of defending TRR (in fact, kind of too much in the opposite direction, I've noticed), but holy damn man, that's some impressive reading between the lines there. So in between the lines you went beyond the quantum level into imaginary land.

It's possible that, thanks to Trump actually having a habit of claiming credit on events his actions had no involvement in, and his base lapping it up, a measure of unity will serve to make him a king among kings to said base and to do-nothing mainstream pundits that fawn on him even if they are regularly critical. This is obviously bad in the case of furthering his political clout in Shithole USA.

It does not necessarily follow that TRR completely pooh-poohs the utter joyous event that would be the Kim regime being taken down.

Wow, talk about having a complete lack of sense of nuance. You just went all-in and cratered yourself against a wall.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Donald Trump will meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un by May, South Korea has announced. The news services claim that there's nothing that Fat Kim wants more than to be seen as an equal to Donald Trump. He's probably right, but not in the way he'd like to think!

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd love to think that this will lead to a peaceful resolution of the Korean conflict, but realistically, I see one of three things happening here:

1. Kim outmaneuvers Trump (possibly with Big Brother Putin pulling the strings on both of them). Trump makes major concessions in return for little, and Kim goes back to his usual tricks when it suits him.

Actually, this has kind of already happened, with Kim getting the PR and credibility boost of a potential face-to-face meeting with Trump.

2. Trump bungles negotiations, resulting in a further escalation, and possibly even Trump using the failed negotiations as "proof" that war is the only option left. This, IMO, is probably the most likely outcome, given Trump's egomaniacal and undisciplined personality.

3. Trump (or others manipulating things behind the scenes) pull it off, and we get a peaceful resolution. Which would be wonderful, in and of itself, but see my point earlier in the thread about Trump and Trumpers claiming this as a legacy. It would potentially validate Trump and Trumpism as a more respectable, mainstream force in politics, and validate his dangerously bellicose approach to foreign policy.

Whatever the outcome, there is a steep price, though obviously option three would be the best, at least in the short-term.

[Simon_Jester]

(2) depends heavily on how smart Kim is. Trump isn't smart enough to change the way he behaves to achieve his goals. But is Kim?

(3) is tricky because people trying to claim it as a legacy for 'Trumpism' will have to explain how on the one hand negotiations are good, but on the other hand random drunken tweets about nuking the country you plan to negotiate with are ALSO somehow good. This is what I'd consider a tough sell.

[The Romulan Republic]

(2) depends heavily on how smart Kim is. Trump isn't smart enough to change the way he behaves to achieve his goals. But is Kim?

I don't know. Kim acts as bellicose and volatile as Trump, but the question is, how much of it is just that? An act.

(3) is tricky because people trying to claim it as a legacy for 'Trumpism' will have to explain how on the one hand negotiations are good, but on the other hand random drunken tweets about nuking the country you plan to negotiate with are ALSO somehow good. This is what I'd consider a tough sell.

They'll say that Trump's hardline position and threats of war scared Kim into coming to the negotiating table. That America Fuck Yeah tough guy stuff holds a lot of appeal to many people.

It is, however, an exceptionally poor model to base our foreign policy on.

Edit: Its basically the fucking Tarkin Doctrine. And is just as inflexible and limited as its fictional counterpart.

[Megabot]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/27/north-k ... media.html

China claims Kim Jong Un has agreed to denuclearize Korean Peninsula

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visited China from Sunday to Wednesday on an unofficial visit, according to China's state news agency Xinhua.
The visit was Kim's first known journey abroad since he assumed power in 2011.
Analysts believe the visit was to serve as preparation for upcoming summits with South Korea and the United States.

Published 21 Hours Ago Updated 19 Hours Ago Reuters

China said on Wednesday it won a pledge from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to denuclearize the Korean peninsula during a meeting with President Xi Jinping, who pledged in return that China would uphold its friendship with its isolated neighbor.

After two days of speculation, China announced on Wednesday that Kim had visited Beijing and met Xi during what the official Xinhua news agency called an unofficial visit from Sunday to Wednesday.

The trip was Kim's first known journey abroad since he assumed power in 2011 and is believed by analysts to serve as preparation for upcoming summits with South Korea and the United States.

Beijing has traditionally been the closest ally of secretive North Korea, but ties have been frayed by North Korea's pursuit of nuclear weapons and China's backing of tough U.N. sanctions in response.

Xinhua cited Kim as telling Xi that the situation on the Korean peninsula is starting to improve because North Korea has taken the initiative to ease tensions and put forward proposals for peace talks.

"It is our consistent stand to be committed to denuclearisation on the peninsula, in accordance with the will of late President Kim Il Sung and late General Secretary Kim Jong Il," Kim Jong Un said, according to Xinhua.

North Korea is willing to talk with the United States and hold a summit between the two countries, he said.

"The issue of denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula can be resolved, if South Korea and the United States respond to our efforts with goodwill, create an atmosphere of peace and stability while taking progressive and synchronous measures for the realization of peace," Kim said.

Chinese state news outlets had photos of Xi and Kim together:

XHNews tweet

People's Daily tweet.

Xi told Kim in return that both sides had stated repeatedly that their traditional friendship should be passed on and developed better.

"This is a strategic choice and the only right choice both sides have made based on history and reality, the international and regional structure and the general situation of China-North Korea ties. This should not and will not change because of any single event at a particular time," Xi said.

Speculation about a possible visit by Kim to Beijing was rife earlier this week after a train similar to the one used by Kim's father was seen in the Chinese capital, along with heavy security and a large motorcade.

Kim was accompanied by his wife, Ri Sol Ju, Xinhua said.

Xi had accepted an invitation from Kim to visit North Korea, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said.

Improving ties between North Korea and China would be a positive sign before planned summits involving the two Koreas and the United States, a senior South Korean official said on Tuesday.

In response to the Chinese government's announcement of Kim's visit, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters, "The Chinese government contacted the White House earlier on Tuesday to brief us on Kim Jong Un's visit to Beijing. The briefing included a personal message from President Xi to President Trump, which has been conveyed to President Trump."

Kim Jong Un's father, Kim Jong Il, met then-president Jiang Zemin in China in 2000 before a summit between the two Koreas in June that year. That visit was seen at the time as reaffirmation of close ties with Beijing.

Good news, or bets on how long it takes for Trump to screw it up?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Seeing how hard NK has been pushing to become a nuclear power, I'd rate the chances of them actually giving that up are slim-to-none unless China really twists their arm.

[Napoleon the Clown]

China might well be really twisting their arm right now. For all China has told N. Korea "We've got your back if someone starts it" they still really, really don't want something to start. China's leadership can't be a bunch of dimwits.

At minimum, they might convince N. Korea to at least stop with the nuclear weapons testing and at least pretend to not be building the damn things.

[mr friendly guy]

My bet is that China has just managed to kick the issue down the road for some time. Given the idiot in the White house, it might not be a bad outcome, because Trump won't be there for more than a few years, but the Kim family is likely to.

[Isolder74]

It's more then likely that Chna's more worried about North Korea might do something with one of their nukes as an either opps or demonstration that starts something they can't actually politically get behind. Ever since WWII using a nuke is a bad political move, no matter who you are.

[Wild Zontargs]

North and South Korea vow to end Korean War

North and South Korea vowed to formally end the Korean War, 65 years after hostilities ceased, the two countries announced in a joint declaration Friday.

The document, formally called the “Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula,” was revealed after a full day of meetings and a 30-minute private conversation in the past hour between Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in.

“The two leaders solemnly declared before the 80 million Korean people and the whole world that there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula and thus a new era of peace has begun,” the declaration said.

Fighting in the Korean War ended in 1953 in stalemate, after which an armistice agreement was signed. But a peace treaty never followed, and the two sides are still technically at war.

“There will not be any more war on the Korean Peninsula, a new era of peace has begun," Moon said after signing the declaration.

“Chairman Kim Jong Un and I have agreed that complete denuclearization will be achieved, and that is our common goal.”

South Korea credits Trump for opening door to talks with North

South Korea's foreign minister has said she believes President Donald Trump is largely responsible for bringing North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table.

Speaking ahead of Friday's historic summit between the leaders of North and South Korea, Kang Kyung-wha told CNN that the US President had played a significant role in bringing the two sides together.

"Clearly, credit goes to President Trump," Kang told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in Seoul. "He's been determined to come to grips with this from day one."

Kim will become the first North Korean leader to cross the Military Demarcation Line between North and South orea on Friday for talks with South Korean President Moon Jae-in. President Trump is expected to meet with Kim in May or June.

Kang told Amanpour that the détente was unexpected. "I think we're all surprised. Obviously pleasantly surprised. I think by all indications we are headed towards a very successful summit between my president and Chairman Kim tomorrow."

She said that Moon's determination also played a role in the thaw. In her analysis, the combination of tough rhetoric and economic and travel sanctions were instrumental.
President Trump's rhetoric, of course, has shifted on North Korea as a summit became a more real possibility.

In August, he threatened "fire and fury like the world has never seen." In September, he said "Rocket Man is on a suicide mission." This week, he said that Kim Jong-un had been "very open and I think very honorable."

Kang admitted Presidents Moon and Trump have at times had "different messaging," but insisted that they maintained close consultations.

"At the end, the message was North Korea will not be accepted -- never be accepted as a nuclear power."

When asked what would constitute success for President Moon's summit with Kim, Kang suggested a joint statement of understanding "on a broad set of issues" including denuclearization, peace, and relations between the two countries.

"If we can get -- put in writing the North Korean leader's commitment to denuclearization, that would be a very solid outcome."

She said that it would be "unrealistic" to expect sudden movement toward a formal peace treaty between the two countries. They have formally been at war since the 1950s, restrained only by an armistice agreement.

"You need to create the reality of peace by removing hostilities... And then when there is sufficient confidence on both sides, then you are ready to sign a peace treaty."

Sanctions on North Korea, she said, will not be eased until Kim takes "visible, meaningful steps" toward denuclearization.

[Exonerate]

Some actual, verifiable steps towards better relations are included in the declaration, like liason offices, family reunions, cessation of hostile acts, etc. Watch out for claims of DPRK agreeing to "denuclearize" in media reports though - that is contingent on the U.S dropping a hostile stance and getting the fuck out of Korea.

My read is that KJU, having secured a nuclear deterrent, now has the breathing room - both domestically and internationally - to pursue better relations and economic reforms. There's a long way to go before anything resembling good relations, reunification, and getting to the point where DPRK isn't an oppressive totalitarian hellhole, but I do believe these are genuine overtures.

[Isolder74]

Well this is a step in the right direction. Here's hoping that to will actually stick and become more then a one time thing. The Korean War deserves a decent closure.

[The Romulan Republic]

Some actual, verifiable steps towards better relations are included in the declaration, like liason offices, family reunions, cessation of hostile acts, etc. Watch out for claims of DPRK agreeing to "denuclearize" in media reports though - that is contingent on the U.S dropping a hostile stance and getting the fuck out of Korea.

My read is that KJU, having secured a nuclear deterrent, now has the breathing room - both domestically and internationally - to pursue better relations and economic reforms. There's a long way to go before anything resembling good relations, reunification, and getting to the point where DPRK isn't an oppressive totalitarian hellhole, but I do believe these are genuine overtures.

Good SK just tell the US "We don't want your bases here any more", if Trump refusing to go along with it is the stumbling block to negotiations?

The damn thing is, it would actually fit with Trump's "America First" bullshit to pull troops out of Korea. But consistency means nothing to Trump.

[Broomstick]

Color me skeptical, but last I heard the NK testing spot was heavily damaged during their last test, so giving up testing now is sort of what would have happened anyway (at least until they get a new facility built). But spinning it as a concession rather a screw up works better for them.

Also, I can't help but worry what would happen to the South if the US completely pulled out - while the South is economically much better off the ideal of NK is that the peninsula would be unified under their system not the South's.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Question is, how much of this is down to arm-twisting by China behind the scenes?