General North Korea thread

[The Romulan Republic]

Watching CNN, and so far so good, so far as not creating a crisis is concerned.

That said, its hard for me to feel much relief, or optimism. Because while I am certainly happy that Trump, despite all my expectations, has thus far managed to avoid escalating the crisis or starting a war, I'm worried about the long-term effects of a deal. What has happened today is that Kim Jong Un, a brutal, tyrannical mass-murderer, has been validated, legitimized. Moreover, a success here will validate nuclear threats over Twitter as a model for successful diplomacy. Perhaps most dangerous of all, it will validate Trump and Trumpism. A success in North Korea will allow Trump to claim a unique, historic success that no other President can claim (even though many factors will have lead to that outcome, and it could well be said to have occurred in spite, not because, of Trump). In one stroke, it may even elevate him to one of the "great presidents". Most people, I fear, won't see the nuances of the situation- they'll just see that Trump was a "strong leader", and therefore successful.

It also sends a message to other, smaller countries that a sure-fire way to gain America's respect, and an equal seat at the table, is to acquire nuclear weapons and threaten to use them. Expect rapid nuclear proliferation, and an increased risk that next time, we won't be so fortunate. We may very well have traded a nuclear war in eastern Asia now for a nuclear war in the Middle East a few years down the line.

In short, this is basically two belligerent dictators validating one another's regimes, while human rights take a back seat, with very serious potential implications for diplomacy and nuclear proliferation in the future. Preferable to nuclear war? Probably so. But there will be very serious long-term consequences. There is really no win in this situation.

[mr friendly guy]

Arguably giving Kim a one on one with the POTUS is already stroking Kim's ego. Not sure if he will return the favour.

Going on, the US previously refused these type of things, preferring multilateral talks. Supposedly it was perceived as legitimising Kim's regime, but if you're going to do a deal with a regime, you kind of already have legitimised them irregardless of whether its multilateral or just between two nations.

Lets see what will happen.

[Ralin]

I have very little confidence in this summit, but it does seem like the most probable candidate for Trump stumbling into doing something good and useful. Saying anything else would be speculation at this point.

It also sends a message to other, smaller countries that a sure-fire way to gain America's respect, and an equal seat at the table, is to acquire nuclear weapons and threaten to use them. Expect rapid nuclear proliferation, and an increased risk that next time, we won't be so fortunate. We may very well have traded a nuclear war in eastern Asia now for a nuclear war in the Middle East a few years down the line.

Let's be real. That ship sailed at least a decade ago. Trying to keep anyone outside of a select club of Russia and America-approved countries from developing nuclear weapons was probably a doomed effort from the get-go.

[The Romulan Republic]

Arguably giving Kim a one on one with the POTUS is already stroking Kim's ego. Not sure if he will return the favour.

Well, so far, it seems to have gone smoothly enough.

Of course, as Trump constantly demonstrates, he's not really someone you can make meaningful deals with, because he has no consistency and makes 90 degree turns on a whim. Remember when Canada was America's bestest friend, a week ago?

Kim is much the same.

Going on, the US previously refused these type of things, preferring multilateral talks. Supposedly it was perceived as legitimising Kim's regime, but if you're going to do a deal with a regime, you kind of already have legitimised them irregardless of whether its multilateral or just between two nations.

Lets see what will happen.

Yeah, we'll see.

I have very little confidence in this summit, but it does seem like the most probable candidate for Trump stumbling into doing something good and useful. Saying anything else would be speculation at this point.

True enough. Trump came out of the G7 citing a win over Canada. Then Trudeau contradicted him and it went down hill from there.

And yeah, its a chance for him to accomplish something good, if only by accident. The problem is that a hypothetical success would be due to many factors, and arguably in spite of, not because of, Trump- but it will be easy for Trump to claim a great success, legitimizing him and his belligerent, childish, narcissistic and dangerous approach to government.

In any case, its already a big win to Kim Jong Un, simply by making him a "legitimate" leader in the eyes of the world, and putting him on a level with the President of the United States. And while he's hardly the first evil man to be accorded such a place, it should not be forgetting who it is that we are dealing with, and what he has done to his own people. Dealing may be better than war- certainly better for the Korean peninsula. But there is a price, and we should not forget it.

It also sends a message to other, smaller countries that a sure-fire way to gain America's respect, and an equal seat at the table, is to acquire nuclear weapons and threaten to use them. Expect rapid nuclear proliferation, and an increased risk that next time, we won't be so fortunate. We may very well have traded a nuclear war in eastern Asia now for a nuclear war in the Middle East a few years down the line.

Let's be real. That ship sailed at least a decade ago. Trying to keep anyone outside of a select club of Russia and America-approved countries from developing nuclear weapons was probably a doomed effort from the get-go.

I hope that you're wrong. In any case, we have to keep working toward denuclearization (not merely preventing more countries from getting the weapons, but eliminating them in countries that already have them.

To shrug our shoulders and accept the inevitability of nuclear proliferation is to shrug our shoulders and accept the inevitability of them eventually being used.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, the last week has kind of been an ongoing "holy shit" moment for global politics in general. Canada is a now a threat to US national security, North Korea is our new maybe-friend, and Kim Jong fucking Un comes out of it looking like a more mature and successful leader than the POTUS. I don't think anyone can predict where things are going, but I fear the beginning of a new world order: the Putin/Trump world order, where strongmen make friends or break alliances with the stroke of a pen, or an angry tweet.

Also, the hypocrisy of the Right here is stunning, considering how they castigated Obama for making a deal with Iran. But that is nothing new. Remember: its okay if a Republican does it.

[mr friendly guy]

Kim pledges to denuclearise the Korean peninsula. As always the devil is in the details. Let me go through what previous analysis have said on this subject. Denuclearising the korean peninsula means both North and South Korea. But wait.. the South doesn't have nukes. Ah but they have the US nuclear umbrella. Denuclearisation for the North may very well mean they want the US out as a condition for their own denuclearisation.

It gets more concerning when Kim refused to answer questions several times about denuclearisation, questions like...

Mr Kim was reportedly asked three times about denuclearisation, but he smiled and said nothing according to the White House press pool.

The North Korean leader was asked twice, “Chairman Kim, will you denuclearise?” and said nothing. The third unanswered question was: “Mr. Kim, will you give up your nuclear weapons, sir?”

He and Mr Trump walked away, ignoring questions that were shouted out to them.

For now, its a case of watch this space and not breakthrough. Given what happened to Iraq and Libya, there is plenty of incentive for Kim not to give up his nukes, unless he is banking on China being a guarantor for his regime.

[Ralin]

And yeah, its a chance for him to accomplish something good, if only by accident. The problem is that a hypothetical success would be due to many factors, and arguably in spite of, not because of, Trump- but it will be easy for Trump to claim a great success, legitimizing him and his belligerent, childish, narcissistic and dangerous approach to government.

In any case, its already a big win to Kim Jong Un, simply by making him a "legitimate" leader in the eyes of the world, and putting him on a level with the President of the United States. And while he's hardly the first evil man to be accorded such a place, it should not be forgetting who it is that we are dealing with, and what he has done to his own people. Dealing may be better than war- certainly better for the Korean peninsula. But there is a price, and we should not forget it.

Why do people go on about this legitimacy crap? Kim Jong-un has been North Korea's head of state for years and is the son of the previous head of state, who ruled for decades and was himself the son of the previous state. Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, lives in the White House and is referred to by the rest of the government as president. No one seriously questions that they are in charge. You don't get much more legitimate than that.

I hope that you're wrong. In any case, we have to keep working toward denuclearization (not merely preventing more countries from getting the weapons, but eliminating them in countries that already have them.

Why? Why do we (who’s we? America? America, Canada and the strongest Western European countries?) have to do any such thing?

To shrug our shoulders and accept the inevitability of nuclear proliferation is to shrug our shoulders and accept the inevitability of them eventually being used.

They’ve already been used and it is inevitable that they will be used again. Unless you seriously believe that war will somehow end forever and obviate the need for weapons that can blow up cities?

[Broomstick]

My mind boggles at the notion of those two bundles of ego in the same room, much less shaking hands.

At this point I'm not expecting anything more than symbolic gestures, but even if I find the two men in charge loathesome as individuals if they do something that backs down tensions in that part of the world it's a good thing.

I'm just not holding my breath and my expectations are low.

[Zaune]

Also, the hypocrisy of the Right here is stunning, considering how they castigated Obama for making a deal with Iran. But that is nothing new. Remember: its okay if a Republican does it.

"Only Nixon can go to China" in action.

And like Nixon in China, this could be the one unambiguously positive and useful thing Trump does in his whole time in office... if his fragile ego, minimal attention span and penchant for temper tantrums doesn't make him cock it up, anyway.

[mr friendly guy]

Nixon was a staunch anti communist. So when he said Red China was willing to do a deal with the US, he was believable.

Trump is a ... yeah what exactly are his geopolitical views aside from anti environmental protection. Because it flip flops so many times. If he says Kim Jong Un is willing to do a deal, a beautiful deal,the best deal ever, my first thought is, how long until Trump changes his mind. Maybe next week. In other words, Trump has a credibility problem convincing Congress and people in general, to support any deal he makes. I mean this is the guy who agreed to the G7 communique and then changed his mind shortly after.

[Zaune]

The Kim Dynasty have passed down the art of self-aggrandisation from father to son for generations, refining and improving the art of creating and tending one's own personality cult year by year. If there's anyone Trump might actually be willing to treat with a measure of respect, it's them. And if we're really lucky they might see him as a kindred spirit and not a rival and some good will come of this.

[Simon_Jester]

In any case, its already a big win to Kim Jong Un, simply by making him a "legitimate" leader in the eyes of the world, and putting him on a level with the President of the United States. And while he's hardly the first evil man to be accorded such a place, it should not be forgetting who it is that we are dealing with, and what he has done to his own people. Dealing may be better than war- certainly better for the Korean peninsula. But there is a price, and we should not forget it.

Trump cannot accord more legitimacy in the eyes of the world than he himself possesses. The thing is, he's a comic-opera buffoon*. He has no legitimacy to grant, no respect to confer.

If Obama had met with Kim, Kim would gain dignity by association. When Trump meets Kim, people crack jokes about birds of a feather flocking together.
________________________

*(the opera in question being a variation of Ubu Roi, I think).

[Exonerate]

I'm not sure what this obsession over legitimacy is either, Kim's lack of it among the international community hasn't stopped him from ruling the last 7 years. People can cry about it all they want, but the fact is that power demands consideration. You can either manage your relations... or not. It's funny to see complaints about the GOP lambasting Obama for his Iran deal because my sense is that if Obama (or Hillary) had done this, the Democrats would be praising it... almost as if there's an element of partisanship here

"Denuclearization" will be in the long-term, if it happens at all. It's being kept deliberately ambiguous so both countries can maintain the diplomatic fiction needed to move forward. The more important thing in the interim is the establishment of new relations and agreement to "build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula", which I interpret as formally ending the Korean War, for starters. I'm cautiously optimistic, even allowing for the possibility the denuclearization part falls apart in the future, and really hoping Trump doesn't do something stupid like renege on Twitter.

[The Romulan Republic]

Why do people go on about this legitimacy crap? Kim Jong-un has been North Korea's head of state for years and is the son of the previous head of state, who ruled for decades and was himself the son of the previous state. Donald Trump was elected president of the United States, lives in the White House and is referred to by the rest of the government as president. No one seriously questions that they are in charge. You don't get much more legitimate than that.

Perhaps "legitimacy" is the wrong word. And I'm not saying that we shouldn't negotiate with them. But acting all chummy with them, like Trump, comes off as basically condoning their actions.

Why? Why do we (who’s we? America? America, Canada and the strongest Western European countries?) have to do any such thing?

"We" being humanity, or rather those of us who want human civilization to survive and thrive.

But wow, you made it one and half posts into this discussion before trying to imply that I'm just a Western Imperialist. I'm impressed. I mean, I specified that I supported denuclearization for all countries, not just those outside the USA/Russia-approved club that you referred to. But I should have known that it would make no difference.

They’ve already been used and it is inevitable that they will be used again. Unless you seriously believe that war will somehow end forever and obviate the need for weapons that can blow up cities?

No offense, but I am so sick of people saying "The world sucks, this is the way it is, so we should just accept it and never hope or try to make it better", and then thinking that their cynicism makes them smarter and more "realistic" than those of who actually think that the world could, conceivably, be a better place, and that this is something worth working towards.

And no, there is no need for weapons that can blow up cities. Waging war does not require genociding the entire civilian populace of a country. Nuclear weapons are kept as a deterrent, not meant to be used. But its foolish to make the threat unless we're prepared to follow through, and as long as they're there, there is the risk that they will be used, either deliberately or accidentally. And frankly, if my country was going to be conquered, I would rather be conquered, and hope that we could overthrow our oppressors later, than for my country's last act to be burning the world in an act of genocidal spite. The only possible exception to this would be if we were being overrun by someone who we knew was going to commit genocide anyway, in which case crippling them might be worth our own mutual destruction.

I don't know, I just don't see much appeal in the "If I'm going down, I'm taking everyone else with me" attitude.

[The Romulan Republic]

Also, the hypocrisy of the Right here is stunning, considering how they castigated Obama for making a deal with Iran. But that is nothing new. Remember: its okay if a Republican does it.

"Only Nixon can go to China" in action.

And like Nixon in China, this could be the one unambiguously positive and useful thing Trump does in his whole time in office... if his fragile ego, minimal attention span and penchant for temper tantrums doesn't make him cock it up, anyway.

I'll agree with that, but I will also note that there it is far too early to be certain of success (as others have said), much less to predict the full long-term consequences of this.

[mr friendly guy]

I'm not sure what this obsession over legitimacy is either, Kim's lack of it among the international community hasn't stopped him from ruling the last 7 years. People can cry about it all they want, but the fact is that power demands consideration. You can either manage your relations... or not.

I suspect it stems from using deligimisation as a technique against people or regimes you don't like. You can insert the country you want in the following example, but if say country A which is ruling region Y, is considered not legitimate despite actually doing all the things that are involved in governing region Y, its more likely to motivate people to try and oppose them with view of overthrowing them or getting them out of region Y.

[K. A. Pital]

What is the fuss about legitimacy?

To achieve peace, you also have to negotiate with rebel movements, whose entire legitimacy rests on lower-class popular support and a rifle in the right hands.

No matter if Trump and Kim or someone else entirely, if a peaceful resolution can be achieved, it would be good.

In Kim’s place I’d be wary of making deals with Trump though. He is a loose cannon, this is not Cuba 1962 - never invaded since the agreement - but something else.

Tread carefully, Lil Kim...

[The Romulan Republic]

What is the fuss about legitimacy?

To achieve peace, you also have to negotiate with rebel movements, whose entire legitimacy rests on lower-class popular support and a rifle in the right hands.

No matter if Trump and Kim or someone else entirely, if a peaceful resolution can be achieved, it would be good.

In Kim’s place I’d be wary of making deals with Trump though. He is a loose cannon, this is not Cuba 1962 - never invaded since the agreement - but something else.

Tread carefully, Lil Kim...

An international agreement with Trump isn't worth the paper its printed on. Just ask Canada. Or Iran.

The more I think about this summit, the more angry and disgusted I become. I watched Trump's comments praising Kim Jon Un as a "tough" leader, saying how his people love him and how "hard-working" the North Korean slaves people are. I watched the President of the United States basically act as Kim Jong Un's propagandist to the world, and talk about the great beaches in North Korea and the fucking real estate opportunities (mark my words, part of the follow-up to this is going to be a Trump Tower in North Korea, at least in Trump's head). But what did we actually get out of this? Okay, Trump managed not to escalate us into a war. That's good. But surely he could have avoided catastrophe without giving Kim Jong Un fucking everything for nothing in return. There's a difference between diplomacy, and being best buds with someone. Trump not only gave Kim Jong Un a massive propaganda victory, and put him on a level with the United States as he has so long craved (albeit more by degrading America's standing than by elevating Kim's)- he promised publicly to pull out of the military exercises (without consulting South Korea, illegally- another international agreement with an ally violated). Hell, he basically used the North Korean line that they are a provocation. These are tremendous wins for Kim Jong Un. And what did we get in return? A tepid, vague pledge to denuclearize from another leader whose word is worthless, which was basically just restating a prior pledge he'd made to South Korea.

Trump got played, as anyone with a brain could have guessed. Kim came out strong and victorious, and Trump came out with nothing except a political boost with people who are still gullible enough not to see through his bullshit. And the price is a peace that is unlikely to last, a dictator exalted, America's credibility further trashed, and a huge incentive for other small countries to rush for their own nukes.

In fact, considering that we are still technically at war with North Korea IIRC, and that Trump basically sold out our allies for his own gain, I would argue that this passes the realm of mere incompetence or corruption, and arguably approaches the level of Treason.

[The Romulan Republic]

And to be clear, I am not saying we should not negotiate. I'm not even saying that Trump shouldn't have met one-on-one with Kim. I'm saying that there's a difference between negotiating for a reasonable agreement, and metaphorically sucking Kim Jong Un's cock in exchange for an empty promise he already made.

[Broomstick]

So... you're basically saying that Trump did with North Korea what he accused Obama of doing with Iran, right?

[Gandalf]

An international agreement with Trump isn't worth the paper its printed on. Just ask Canada. Or Iran.

Couldn't you make the same statement about the US in general? All treaties exist at the whim of the current regime?

In fact, considering that we are still technically at war with North Korea IIRC, and that Trump basically sold out our allies for his own gain, I would argue that this passes the realm of mere incompetence or corruption, and arguably approaches the level of Treason.

No. The DPRK and the ROK are at war with each other. Everyone else just came along for a bit.

[Simon_Jester]

So... you're basically saying that Trump did with North Korea what he accused Obama of doing with Iran, right?

Yeah. The difference is that Obama didn't walk away praising the Ayatollah and saying "Iran is no longer a problem." Because Obama isn't a dumbass.

An international agreement with Trump isn't worth the paper its printed on. Just ask Canada. Or Iran.

Couldn't you make the same statement about the US in general? All treaties exist at the whim of the current regime?

Most of the time the current regime will at least acknowledge enlightened self-interest when it comes to honoring international treaties. Reagan or Dubya might encounter a situation where a pre-existing treaty required them to do something they'd rather not do, and they might very well sigh and do it, because they recognize that some day THEY will have to negotiate a treaty and upholding the norm that the treaties will, on the whole, be followed is desirable.

But Trump is mentally incapable of this because to him, all deals are cons. The moment he sees a deal having any effects he doesn't control or can't alter, he automatically decides it's a bad deal and tries to renege on it. Having good lawyers and an inexhaustible reserve of startup capital for the ensuing bankruptcies can let you get away with that in private business, but in international affairs it's a worthless mindset.

In fact, considering that we are still technically at war with North Korea IIRC, and that Trump basically sold out our allies for his own gain, I would argue that this passes the realm of mere incompetence or corruption, and arguably approaches the level of Treason.

No. The DPRK and the ROK are at war with each other. Everyone else just came along for a bit.

Could you expand how this is the legalities of the situation? Or is it just, like, your opinion?

[The Romulan Republic]

An international agreement with Trump isn't worth the paper its printed on. Just ask Canada. Or Iran.

Couldn't you make the same statement about the US in general? All treaties exist at the whim of the current regime?

Have treaties been violated before? Sure (and that is nothing unique to the United States). But Trump is unusually brazen and reckless in his disregard for America's treaty obligations, even longstanding agreements with longstanding allies. Yeah, another President could do these things. But most don't, at least not as frequently and recklessly as Trump, because there are consequences to doing so and they understand that. Passing it off cynically as "Oh its always like this" isn't really accurate, and its dangerous. Its reminiscent of the same cynical "all politicians are just as bad" attitude that helped Trump get elected in the first place. Because if all politicians are equally bad, then nothing Trump does matters. If its always like this and always will be, why not elect a rapist conman endorsed by the Klan?

What Trump's doing is not normal, and should not be normalized.

No. The DPRK and the ROK are at war with each other. Everyone else just came along for a bit.

Correction noted. Though there was never a formal peace treaty with NK, correct?

So... you're basically saying that Trump did with North Korea what he accused Obama of doing with Iran, right?

Pretty much, yeah. But that's Trump. The man projects hard.

I'm honestly half-expecting to find out that the Trumpers are running a pedophile pizza joint one of these days.

[Broomstick]

No. The DPRK and the ROK are at war with each other. Everyone else just came along for a bit.

Correction noted. Though there was never a formal peace treaty with NK, correct?

That is correct. Currently, there is a cease-fire between the two sides but no declaration of peace.

And while yes, it's between DPRK and ROK it's ludicrous to assert the US was not somehow part of the ROK's side of the conflict. It's rather like people in the US who want to argue that to Korean War wasn't a war for the US, it was a "police action". No, it was a fucking war. Euphemism doesn't change that.

[Vympel]

What is the fuss about legitimacy?

To achieve peace, you also have to negotiate with rebel movements, whose entire legitimacy rests on lower-class popular support and a rifle in the right hands.

No matter if Trump and Kim or someone else entirely, if a peaceful resolution can be achieved, it would be good.

In Kim’s place I’d be wary of making deals with Trump though. He is a loose cannon, this is not Cuba 1962 - never invaded since the agreement - but something else.

Tread carefully, Lil Kim...

We must not give North Korea legitimacy. With such a threatening legitimacy surplus, North Korea could load legitimacy warheads onto missiles.

The behavior of basically the entire US media during this affair has been utterly disgusting. Virtually zero interest in whether the talks reduce the likelihood of armed conflict on the Korean peninsula (or heaven forbid, a nuclear exchange) - attacking Trump from the right, giving succor to every single nat-sec grifter / neocon argument, promoting continued militarism and aggression on the peninsula, and totally ignoring what the people of South Korea say about the entire affair (they're overwhelmingly in favour of peace talks) in favour of insular horse race bullshit about whether this makes Trump look bad as well as ludicrous myth-making about US relations with dictatorships in the pre-Trump era.

https://www.thenation.com/article/trump ... s-furious/

The lack of interest by the US press corps in how the talks would affect South Koreans was underscored during the press conference with Trump. About half the questions from the White House crew focused on the wisdom of a US president meeting with a dictator—as if this had never occurred before—or how the North Korea talks might affect other aspects of US foreign relations.

About halfway through the hour-long event, a Korean reporter started shouting “South Korea! South Korea!” to divert the discussion back to the impact on his country. Eventually, Trump recognized a woman from Arirang News, who brought the issue home by asking if Trump would be speaking soon to President Moon (yes) and if he was optimistic about the prospects of a peace treaty (yes again).

Watching the spectacle from Seoul on CNN, Seth Mountain, an American teacher and musician, told me that he and his Korean friends found the press behavior insulting. “Nearly every question presupposes a US right to dominate Korea and decide its fate,” he told me in a Facebook message. Media critic Adam Johnson, a sometime contributor to The Nation, had a similar reaction after watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC rip into Trump’s cancellation of the US–South Korean war games.

“Complete, categorical erasure of South Koreans and South Korean left,” he tweeted. “The easiest, cheapest NatSec-flattering banality. Totally partisan myopia.” That about summarizes the US coverage of what may turn out to be the most important diplomatic achievement of the Trump years.