29 ms·

Two Koreas Agree to End War This Year, Pursue Denuclearization

673 points by almost_usual 9y ago

21 9y ago
From the Guardian, which can't be accused of being a Trump lover: > This system of indoctrination and propaganda complicates any official announcement of the Trump meeting. An ideological framework must be devised to explain the talks with the enemy; and regardless of how they are presented, there is an uncomfortable margin for the “infallible” leader to be seen to fail in his aims. > Trump is a volatile opponent who telegraphed his impatience even before the two men fixed a place to talk, warning he would walk away if he thought the preparations weren’t going anywhere. > But this unpredictability is the reason there are talks at all. Trump’s barrage of verbal and Twitter attacks on North Koreans – which have been reported there – led Pyongyang to question if it was, for the first time in a generation, facing a US president willing to attack them, experts say. > Officials there have long calculated that no US president would risk lives in Seoul with an attack on the North. But under Trump that is no longer a safe assumption, says Andrei Lankov, professor of Korean Studies at Kookmin University. > Kim, like his predecessors, has proved adept at manipulating regional and world powers into providing aid and political support while offering little in return. Now Kim may at last be forced into making real changes to stave off looming political and economic crises. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/20/north-korea-pyongyang-kim-jong-un-donald-trump https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/20/north-korea-py...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- wslh 9y ago
  Madman theory? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
  - kneel 9y ago
    The art of the deal
- pavlov 9y ago
  Nixon took the same approach and called it the “Madman Theory”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory As a politician, Trump is a strange hybrid of Nixon and Berlusconi. I don’t think he’s consciously emulating Nixon on this though, he just has similar instincts.
  - azernik 9y ago
    The most efficient way to look crazy is to actually be crazy.
- collyw 9y ago
  Is it fair to say that Trump has done more for world peace than Obama now?
  - frockington 9y ago
    He needs to drone a few more Americans over seas to beat Obama
  - lmm 9y ago
    It'll be 10 years or more before we can really answer that question. Trump's talks could work out exactly as planned or they could trigger a nuclear war, or anything in between. Were Obama's calls on Egypt/Libya/Tunisa/... the right ones for the sake of the long term? It's hard to say we'll ever know for sure.
    - misja111 9y ago
      Israel and Saudi Arabia are also getting along surprisingly well lately. See e.g. http://www.euronews.com/2017/12/26/view-saudi-israel-alliance-will-be-driving-force-of-new-middle-east http://www.euronews.com/2017/12/26/view-saudi-israel-allianc...
      - elgenie 9y ago
        That's more about counterbalancing Iran in the region and is an "enemy-of-my-enemy" alliance of convenience. The ability to play Iraq and Iran against each other that used to exist went by the wayside when Saddam was toppled and got replaced with nothing.
    - collyw 9y ago
      Obama didn't really do much do justify his world peace prize. Surely getting this far deserves a little credit, no? Or are we all supposed to be of "everything Trump does is bad" line of thinking on here as well? (Looking at the down votes on my original comment, apparently so).
      - 9y ago
- matwood 9y ago
  TLDR; when my mom would threatened punishment it was a suggestion, when my dad threatened punishment it was a mandate.
  - koolba 9y ago
    If you're smart about it you don't make threats at all. The threats need to be inferred and the enforcement immediate.
    - xienze 9y ago
      > If you're smart about it you don't make threats at all. The threats need to be inferred and the enforcement immediate. And how'd that work out for the last however many presidents?
      - koolba 9y ago
        > And how'd that work out for the last however many presidents? I was referring to raising children.
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    The recent strike on Syria may have sobered Kim up a bit
- gadders 9y ago
  Si vis pacem, para bellum.
- Covzire 9y ago
  Peter Zeihan had some really interesting things to say about Kim Jung Un that completely expanded how I viewed NK. https://youtu.be/feU7HT0x_qU?t=3928 https://youtu.be/feU7HT0x_qU?t=3928 Edit: The gist of the prevailing theory is that in 1994, days before NK was supposed to talk to SK about re-unification, they suffered a coup. Since at least Kim Jung Il's death, Kim Jung Un has been reversing that coup to realize his grandfather's previous plans.
onetimemanytime 9y ago
NK's Kim would be stupid to give them up, see what happened to a guy a named Saddam and to another named Muammar. Assad, if not for Russia would have the next one. He can slow development down in return for aid...and milk them for decades.
- IIAOPSW 9y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted. Obviously everyone wants peace but realistically doing what you said is the rational thing for NK to do and there is tons of historical precedent. The only state to ever denuclearize and not regret it is South Africa.
  - pavlov 9y ago
    Sweden had a nuclear weapons program in 1946-68, and probably doesn’t regret terminating it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_weapons_of_mass_d... It wasn’t close to delivering actual warheads though.
  - bloak 9y ago
    But is today's South Africa the same thing as the previous South Africa which had nuclear weapons? Are the people who authorised and developed South Africa's nuclear weapons still living in that part of the world?
    - neuro_imager 9y ago
      South Africa didn't 'denuclearise' in the sense of giving up arms. They had a change to a completely incompetent government who wouldn't know how to spell 'nuclear' let alone fathom the scientific research and economic and political strategy required to run such a program. And given that nuclear scientists and competent political strategists tend to be smart, they don't hang around in swamps very long.
  - vixen99 9y ago
    Using downvotes as any kind of metric is usually (perhaps not always) nuts.
tobyhinloopen 9y ago
This is just a PR show... the war isn’t over until the NK population is free
- have_faith 9y ago
  Sometimes perception of something happening is all you need to make something happen. See: Crypto prices
- cjslep 9y ago
  The big question is if China would allow it. The answer 60 years ago was a violent "no".
  - Jtsummers 9y ago
    If North Korea remains its own state buy they achieve some sense of peace, China would be happiest. The US would have little justification for keeping their military on the peninsula and would have to find new justification for the size of their military presence in Japan. China would still have a buffer between themselves and a US ally. If they somehow joined into one country (doesn’t seem likely near term but let’s say it happens) the same element with the US military withdrawal remains. But China loses the buffer zone. They’d be less happy but probably not unhappy. The rhetoric out of NK, especially since they developed nukes, could not have made China happy. All it did was help justify the US military presence in the region. This harms some of China’s objectives and also keeps the US physically and politically present in what they see as their part of the world. Peace here could strengthen Chinese political influence, especially if they can claim and justify that they were key players in achieving this peace.
    - PakG1 9y ago
      The most likely path forward is for North Korea to develop using the Chinese model without all the Chinese mistakes (eg. learn all the lessons that China learned the hard way without making the same mistakes). This path forward would likely satisfice all parties, though China would probably come out a bit ahead in the grand scheme of things.
sudosteph 9y ago
I never thought I'd see this happen. I know it's Orwellian, but the concept of permanent cold war didn't seem that unlikely. It's weird to think that my grandfather fought in the Korean war and his child and grandchildren all grew up wondering if and when it was going to come to a head again. Though I guess in the grand scheme of things, there have been some much longer (and bloodier) wars in history which are barely a paragraph in history text books today. I'm not incredibly familiar with the situation as it stands, but is re-unification a legitimate possibility? I mean, I don't see Kim Jong-Un giving up power, but I could see them wanting to claim re-unification at least from a cultural perspective, like they did in the Olympics.
- rtpg 9y ago
  I talked to a "wall expert" in college who mentioned the severe strain East Germany was on West Germany after reunification, because of the economic disparity. Her theory was that reunification of the Koreas would be very messy given the economic disparity between the two nations, and that SK doesn't want it. That being said I would hope that NK actually goes along with joint projects with its neighbors. Not like the aid will stop if they're more amicable. The politics become a bit less rough if we're still talking about 2 regimes I think
  - patall 9y ago
    That (about Germany) is only partially true. Sure, the whole german state made the reunification financially possible but most of the state owned stuff (economic land & buildings etc) ended up being owned by the Bund and not the federal states. Most of it was (and still is) privatized while the federal states, citites and people having not much money which lead to many (somewhat richer) people from the west being able to buy cheap property, land and some profitable companies. So to sum my points up: I could totally be in the South Koreans interest to reunify in order to buy cheap property in the north (and at the same time a very good reason for North Koreans to not want it, even though they would gain an immediate financial benefit through it).
    - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
gaius 9y ago
I expect this will be a chapter in The Art Of The Deal vol II
- fnord123 9y ago
  I'm very naive of NK/SK politics but I do wonder how much of this was influenced by installation of John Bolton who is absolutely frothing at the mouth for a war with NK.
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    Or Mike Pompeo, who secretly met with Kim before being confirmed as Secretary of State.
  - Presquare 9y ago
    Trump is often described as narsisstic, petty, childish, unpredictable etc. and he seems much more likely to act based on personal emotions rather than "rational cost/benefit analysis". And then you have Bolton who seems to be hoping for a war. These aren't the types most of us would want as our leaders, but they make extremely scary enemies when they are leading the most powerful military in the world. Normally nothing serious will happen even if Russia or NK test their boundaries, and they know it. But now, with Trump and Bolton in charge, their casual threats can suddenly have real consequences for them. I would be surprised if this didn't have a significant effect on how other countries decide to interact with the USA.
golergka 9y ago
Trump's madman tactic turned out to be much more effective than everyone gave him credit for. Who would have thought.
- pavlov 9y ago
  I’m worried about what will happen when NK inevitably backtracks and fails to deliver on promises of denuclearization. If Trump is still in office at that time, he’ll look back to the 2017 brinkmanship as a triumph and want to overdo himself somehow. With hawks like Bolton offering him advice, who knows how far it can go?
  - golergka 9y ago
    > If Trump is still in office at that time, he’ll look back to the 2017 brinkmanship as a triumph and want to overdo himself somehow. Which would be a completely rational thing to do. > With hawks like Bolton offering him advice, who knows how far it can go? This question is the main reason for the current development - unlike previous american presidents, Trump plays the madman very convincingly. Of course, he has to be ready to put his money where his mouth is if he wants to continue to be taken seriously.
    - pavlov 9y ago
      > Which would be a completely rational thing to do. Escalating a nuclear crisis for spectacle value is rational if you’re a reality TV host and you believe each season of the show must be bigger and more exciting.
      - golergka 9y ago
        If you want the world to believe your word, you've got to stand by it. There's much more value in it than just "spectacle".
- louhike 9y ago
  Maybe it's giving it too much credit to say it happened because of him or that it was what he planned.
auganov 9y ago
The big story I think many are missing is - what happens if the US+SK manages to completely flip NK into a pro-western nation.
- Shivetya 9y ago
  Well, can we buy the NK leadership out? By that I mean convince them to get on a path of full integration with the South leading. It would take some guarantees of protection from prosecution and as well insuring their lifestyles. All costs well worth it to free a nation from the situation they are in.
  - umanwizard 9y ago
    Why should they trust us to keep our end of the bargain?
- mathgeek 9y ago
  I have to admit... this is the first time in my life I've considered peaceful reunification as a realistic possibility.
  - aerovistae 9y ago
    But consider this: what would happen to the Kim family if reunification occurred? He would have to be tried for crimes against humanity, and if he realized he was going to be sent to prison, why would he go without a fight? How could this possibly come to pass? The only way it could happen would be if he were completely pardoned, which is logical if it benefits the greater good at no further cost, but very against human nature. In all likelihood, by his perception, he's done nothing wrong! So...it won't be something to discuss, for him. It would be a great offense and a threat.
    - eadmund 9y ago
      > The only way it could happen would be if he were completely pardoned, which is logical if it benefits the greater good at no further cost, but very against human nature. It's happened in the past, e.g. with Pinochet — and later on the Spaniards went after him anyway, in spite of the amnesty and in spite of the bad example this would set for future dictators.
bitL 9y ago
So Kim's nuclear test site collapsed, likely destroying years of work, necessary equipment and possibly hit trained human personnel, so he suddenly went on a "tour for peace". Can't say I am unhappy.
- nsnick 9y ago
  That's not how underground nuclear testing works. The bombs are not developed or stored inside the mountain where they test. There would have been no one inside the mountain during the test. The mountain collapsed during the test. Kim probably thinks that his bombs are powerful enough and reliable enough for him to have a strong negotiating position.
  - bitL 9y ago
    Unless the blast was much stronger and hit distant equipment never meant to be affected which is difficult to replace. Of course the bombs aren't developer/stored at a test site, but without proper test site they still might not be entirely usable in an ICBM or in a submarine, and too large to fit into a bomber to pose any non-local threat.
- jmartrican 9y ago
  Is this a known fact or hypothesis?
  - T-A 9y ago
    As close to known fact as you can get without inspecting the site in person. It started with warnings from Chinese geologists last fall [1], was followed by unofficial news of a partial collapse which left 200 tunnel workers dead [2][3], and then by papers by two different groups concluding that the site has collapsed [4]. [1] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2117340/chinese-scientists-warn-north-korea-about-disaster-threat-nuclear http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2117340/chine... [2] https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/873443/north-korea-nuclear-accident-Punggye-ri-tunnel-collapse-kim-jong-un https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/873443/north-korea-nucl... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-01/about-200-died-at-north-korea-nuclear-site-tv-asahi-reports https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-01/about-200... [4] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43894394 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43894394
spodek 9y ago
What changed that North Korea would be serious this time? I can't think of much. On the contrary, they seem stronger. Maybe they feel they have enough to negotiate more favorable terms than ever before. Maybe the borders have become so porous to outside information coming in that they feel change is inevitable so they'd do better to be in front of it. I can't get past that on a personal level, the decision-makers, in particular Kim Jong Un's family, are responsible for many people's suffering and deaths, which I would think would make them fear too much freedom among the survivors. People hunted Nazis for generations. Wouldn't the North Korean decision-makers fear being hunted? Meanwhile, China has been invaded more than once from the Korean peninsula. How willing will they be to lose a buffer between themselves and U.S. military bases?
- empath75 9y ago
  Combination of trump’s unpredictability, being able to negotiate from a position of strength and a South Korean leader who wants to pursue peace.
- asfasgasg 9y ago
  A possibly highly irrational US president in a world where other US ground conflicts are winding down? I wonder this too. I expect we won't really know until we have a decade or two of hindsight to try to understand.
  - fahadkhan 9y ago
    Let's hope Trump weakening the US politically and economically plays out well for the world.
    - smhost 9y ago
      It won't, because America has a habit of doing American things whenever it has too much economic anxiety.
      - cvwright 9y ago
nl 9y ago
One should note that North Korea is now in a position where they can appear to make generous concessions. They are a nuclear power, and there is no way they will ever give that up, no matter how much they promise they will. They have done it in the past and will again. In case it isn't clear, "denuclearization" means the removal of the US nuclear shield from the Korean peninsular and from Japan. For those who aren't aware, the current US/Japan alliance guarantees the US nuclear arsenal will protect Japan (and South Korea)[1]. That is why those countries haven't pursued their own nuclear arms program. This will be a big problem. If North Korea offers to denuclearize then there will be huge pressure on the US to withdraw from South Korea. North Korea is utterly untrustworthy on this of course, but that's a hard argument to make if they appear to be making reasonable concessions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_umbrella https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_umbrella
- dis-sys 9y ago
  > If North Korea offers to denuclearize then there will be huge pressure on the US to withdraw from South Korea. then just borrow more money to maintain the presence there. when US treasury bond yield is reaching 3% and the public debt is more than 20 trillion, who cares about some extra billion $ spent there.
  - nl 9y ago
    The pressure will come from elements in the South Korean public, and it’s not over any financial issues.
    - dis-sys 9y ago
      more than 20 trillion public debt as of today, and it is increasing faster. Eventually, the federal revenue is going to be less than the interests that need to be paid annually. what US is going to do about it? explain to debt collectors that some elements in South Korea want US troops there?
      - nl 9y ago
MH15 9y ago
It all becomes obvious now. I told people for years that Kim Jong Un wouldn't have ever built his nuclear arsenal if the entire first world hadn't believed he was stupid. However, only recently I (and others) have been starting to think about the long term- if the two Koreas manage to build a lasting peace what does that make Kim Jong Un? Literally the greatest leader North Korea has ever had. It will also be interesting to see how far modernization goes in North Korea. Will he actually address his human rights issues or will nothing really change? Aside, I can see Trump using this in his 2020 campaign if this plays out in an American way. Do you think this could be a platform?
- ataturk 9y ago
  It's worse than that--NK didn't "build a nuclear arsenal." They were GIVEN a nuclear arsenal. Let that sink in. Who wanted to be nuclear armed in order to blackmail the whole world? I know it sounds like a Bond film plot, but I think we'll eventually find out how it really came to be that NK got the bomb rather abruptly and where that tech and know-how originated. It wasn't from China, either.
- mstade 9y ago
  Given Trump’s base, I’d be surprised if they gave two cents about what happens on the other side of the world.
  - Libturd 9y ago
    comments like this are why trump won, and why he'll win 2020. you just don't get it you fucking dolts LOL!
indescions_2018 9y ago
Massive. Overnight the calculus has shifted from containment to re-unification. The blue "Peninsula Flag" under which athletes of both nations marched in the Olympics was indeed prescient. Despite its interpretation in NK news broadcasts as a symbol of "autonomous unification". With the historical inevitability of the masses in the south adopting a revolutionary consciousness and being absorbed into the north. Today, we can take it to be a universal symbol of peace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Unification_Flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Unification_Flag Here at home, it gives Trump the necessary political capital going into primary season and the Midterm congressional elections. And perhaps even a shared Nobel. But low key bragging rights may actually belong to Xi. If NK does liberalize, it will be Beijing providing the investment. "May you live in interesting times" indeed ;)
- happyrock 9y ago
  > With the historical inevitability of the masses in the south adopting a revolutionary consciousness and being absorbed into the north. Please explain. Why would this be "inevitable"?
dantillberg 9y ago
This is a trap. South Korea and the United States are politically weak right now -- not necessarily the leaders, but the political systems are at a low point of unity and resolve. Neither country really wants to deal with North Korea right now. People in each country would like this drama to be over, because it feels dangerous and intractable. The leaders in each country would love to deliver that feeling to us. Kim Jong-un has an incredibly strong hand. He has nuclear missiles at his disposal, with apparently rapid progress toward increasing their range. He knows that other nations are fearful of those weapons, and that they won't do anything that risks putting them on the receiving end of even one. We've had one bold historic headline after another now: Kim Jong-un has telegraphed a desire to denuclearize and to end the Korean war. He has raised the hopes of South Koreans and of Americans just enough that they each want a deal now, and their leaders now need to deliver. But the price has not yet been negotiated. What will be the price? Will Kim promise to stop further nuclear development? Will Kim promise to stop further missile development? Will Kim promise not to help other states develop nuclear missiles? Will Kim promise not to radically modernize his military in other ways as the floodgates of trade open? Promises are inexpensive and reversible. Will he actually take any real steps to diminish or eliminate his nuclear and military power? I doubt it. Kim's not an idiot. He only needs to present the illusion. People in the West seem to believe that Kim has experienced some sort of rebirth as a student of peace and nonviolence of late. But there's been no explanation and no demonstration (to my ears) of where that came from. It's possible perhaps that Xi Jinping whispered wonderful ideas and/or threats in Kim Jong-un's ear when he visited, but that's opaque to us and media I've read seems to be ignorant of such potential influence. If Kim were so serious, we should need him to demonstrate that credibly to us, through actions that are costly for him to take: in particular, pitching this change of vision directly and passionately to the populace of North Korea. Kim Jong-un wants to get out from under the chokehold of heavy trade sanctions. He wants to be legitimized in the international community as the leader of a real nation. He wants to modernize both his military and his nation and his personal life. He probably dreams of visiting Paris and Manhattan. It is my belief that he will be able to get these things -- without giving up nuclear weapons, missiles, nor giving up his political or military power over North Korea. From Kim's perspective, democratic politicians are weak and manipulable, and he will find it to be especially true right now. (edit: s/telescoped/telegraphed/ -- thanks!)
TorKlingberg 9y ago
Am I the only one who thinks this is happening mainly because of political shifts in South Korea? 2013-2017 the South Korean president was Park Geun-hye of the conservative Saenuri Party. They generally have a hostile attitude towards North Korea. In late 2016 she had a major scandal, was impeached, and Moon Jae-in of the more liberal Democratic Party won. They are generally more willing no talk to the North. He is the person meeting Kim today.
- opmac 9y ago
  Yes, you're literally the only one.
- murph-almighty 9y ago
  Unrelated, but the scandal that got Park kicked out was wild. Never thought someone trying to force their daughter into a college would lead to the president of SK resigning.
  - girvo 9y ago
    South Korean politic scandals are fascinating to watch from the outside... must suck to have to deal with if you lived there though. I spent six months in Busan, not long enough for any of that myself and I was too young to have given a damn about politics anyway
- vivekd 9y ago
  I would doubt this because from 1998 to 2008 Korea has had liberal presidents who had a policy of engagement towards North Korea and we didn't get peace in that time. While getting rid of Park Geun-Hye certainly made this easier - I think this has more to do with Kim Jong Un and also the warm reception N. Korea got at the recent winter Olympics in South Korea. That said I would be cautious how far this would go. I suspect a lot of N. Koreas militaristic acts and statements over the years is not because of any actual desire but war, but just posturing to help in negotiations over tariffs and aid. I am also going to take the unpopular opinion and say that Trump does deserve some credit. Under many past Presidents, the N. Korean government knew America would never use military force and acted accordingly. Under Trump, they have good reason to be concerned about the possibility of military force and are taking a more cautious and reconciliatory approach. I think the North Koreans are well aware that militaristic posturing won't get them very far with Trump the way it did with past presidents.
toblender 9y ago
I can sense the skepticism in the comments, but this is amazing news! All those people suffering from lack will have a chance to take part in our modern abundance. I can only imagine what will happen when NK opens it's doors to SK fully. There will be a massive demand for good and services. Exciting times!
elvirs 9y ago
I think, unfortunately, all of this is just a show put on by NK because and Iran has paid them to do it. In the first week of May lifting US sanctions off Iran has to be renewed and Trump was 99% expected not to renew lifting those sanctions (a process started by Obama). Now by making this move NK is going to make US look like an unreliable peacemaker if Trump decides not to extend sanctions lifting off Iran.
bdunklau 9y ago
This is 100% Trump. Sorry if you're a Never-Trumper. But he did what no President has ever been able to do. And he did it by being STRONG, not weak. No one respects weak leadership like Obama and Carter. Strength is what other nations respect. #MAGA #MKGA
- bdunklau 9y ago
  down-voters can't handle the truth LOL But don't worry. If you hate Trump, he'll be gone in 7 years.
maxxxxx 9y ago
This reminds me a little of the Gorbachev situation. He thought he could reform the Soviet Union but only started an uncontrollable process for its disintegration. Makes me wonder if Kim is just naive thinking he can open up his country while staying in power or has some smart plan. Personally I think he not knowingly has started the process of ending his regime.
- hencq 9y ago
  Perhaps. On the other hand, China watched the events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union with great interest and adapted in a way that kept the Communist Party in power. Kim might see that as a model instead.
caligarn 9y ago
I’m pretty shocked no one in this thread gives credit to China. Kim Jong Un did travel to Beijing in an armored car and met with Xi Jinping. China has also been levying sanctions and restricting tourist travel etc into the country. China is quite annoyed at what Korea is doing to threaten its Belt Road plans. And with the Korean conflict potentially over, China has free reign to dominate Asia, and push up against Japan. No doubt Trump likely pushed things to a head with his Twitter diplomacy but an extremely globally ambitious China has to play a role in this as well.
- Macuyiko 9y ago
  Me too, and it wouldn't surprise me if a deal was struck: go for peace, you'll remain a buffer and own state. We'll support you and will be able to push investments into your country. Capitalism with socialist characteristics-style.
- cryptonector 9y ago
  If none of this would or could have happened without an American President who pushed hard on NK and China, then why should credit go to China?? (if not to deny Trump credit?)
loxs 9y ago
I have no idea how credible this is, but might be a good explanation on why is this happening: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/26/north-korea-nuclear-test-site-collapses/552974002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/26/north-k...
- cryptonector 9y ago
  It's credible, but it's not the explanation. The reason this is happening is that DJT made it clear that he would starve NK until they abandoned their nukes. Then he made it clear to China that the US would hit China's pocket book real hard if they did not cooperate. Then China made it clear to Kim that the jig is up. Kim doesn't want to hang from a lamp post, and neither do his henchmen. So Kim sued for peace.
  - loxs 9y ago
    So we are nominating him for some of the next years' peace Nobel prizes? That would be a fun sight :D
    - cryptonector 9y ago
      Peace through strength. That's not the kind of talk that the Nobel folks like to hear. My guess is they won't give it to DJT.
      - monocasa 9y ago
        I mean, Kissinger got a Nobel Peace Prize.
        cryptonector 9y ago
        Sure, it's possible it will happen.
    - frockington 9y ago
      Obama got it for being elected. It'll be interesting to see how they play it with DJT
noetic_techy 9y ago
Theory: Xi put massive pressure on North Korea to sue for peace during the armored train trip Kim made to China because he doesn't want Trump/Pentagon using it as an excuse for a more immediate military buildup in the region and the possible nuclearization of SK and Japan in response. Japan was already starting to flex more. Xi probably threatened to cut them off and even invade NK if he didn't cool it, they were becoming too much of a liability. I think China thinks Washington is crazy enough now for a pre-emtive strike (Madman theory?), and that could drag China into a war they are not ready for. The US still struck Syria despite Russian threats, its not unfeasible to think the same applies to NK. China's long term goal is to take back Taiwan, secure their back yard and ultimately become the hub of Eurasian continent, but they need to buy a couple more decades time, they are not yet ready for a true face off. That said however, its also possible this has no effect really, China's posturing itself is enough of a reason for a buildup and Washington can still spin it this way. Like I said, buys more time but probably doesn't negate the inevitable face off. In the end, NK will be authoritarian "modern" like China is "modern". I can't imagine Kim giving up that much power, just shifting it to a better model that keeps him in the loop. This was probably the "out" Xi gave him during his visit. China may even turn this form of authoritarianism into a commodity they can sell to other dictators. "Look at NK then and now! See what our political system / AI facial recognition technology can do for you and your people? Just take a low interest loan from us and we will build the system for you and show you how to use it. You can be advanced just like China AND be in power forever!". It's truly naive to think there is anything less than geo-political calculus here. If you think this is a momentous occasion, you're fooling yourself with rose colored glasses. That being said, I'd love to hear some alternative theories. Shoot me down. Pop my bubble.
- wilonth 9y ago
  I mean, the whole world would be cheering if NK would do that. We totally don't need to care that NK is an authoritarian regime if it's being nice and doing a good job for its citizen and the world. Whatever peaceful version of NK we'd get would be light years better than this looming WW3 threat we've been worrying about this whole decade.
- hangonhn 9y ago
amai 9y ago
Maybe the fact, that North Koreas nuclear test site has collapsed, has something to do with the progress in the negotiations: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2143171/north-koreas-nuclear-test-site-has-collapsed-and-may-be-why-kim-jong-un http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/214...
- JBReefer 9y ago
  Aren't test sites just a place you set off the bombs? Seems like the worst possible place to store anything of value.
thanatropism 9y ago
It will be interesting to watch Cuba now. Like it or not, there is at least a change in tone from Obama to Trump in what the US is willing to accomodate in Cuba. There's this whole debate going on about Trump's effect in the Korean process, but Cuba will be a much cleaner test.
sambull 9y ago
This won't last, unless the world decides to give up nukes. NK says they've miniaturized a weapon, have the delivery system and will denuclearize when the 'world' does. [0] https://www.reuters.com/video/2018/04/21/north-korea-tv-says-the-country-will-sto?videoId=419880939&videoChannel=-13168 https://www.reuters.com/video/2018/04/21/north-korea-tv-says...
grrmx1 9y ago
The North isn't going to disarm. Nuclear weapons are their one deterrent against the US, who have shown in the past that they are willing to invade and destroy regimes that went through the trouble of disarming (Iraq, Lybia). So why would he disarm now, if he knows - for a fact - that ten years from now his goodwill will count for nothing with the next, presumably hostile, American administration? My guess is that in the next few months we will see none of the vague promises made today come to life. This will then be followed by retrenchment, with both sides blaming the other. I can already see Trump furiously blasting tweets about the treacherous North. Meanwhile, Kim will go on doing what his family has been doing for generations - play regional and global powers off each other in order to get small concessions from each of them, while keeping his personal dynasty intact. I hope it's not so, but logic suggests it is. The goal of every state is to survive. As long as the US poses a legitimate threat to the North, they are not going to willingly give up their one effective deterrent.
- josefresco 9y ago
  Iraq didn't "voluntarily disarm"
  - TheForumTroll 9y ago
    They couldn't disarm of nukes they didn't have.
    - grrmx1 9y ago
      I was referring to the arms inspections that were taking place through the 90s. Iraq had some quantity of chemical and biological WMDs that the Americans were eager to destroy. Iraq let them. And then still got invaded. I was referring to this, when I said they disarmed.
  - grrmx1 9y ago
    Iraq was subject to fairly intrusive US-lobbied inspection for much of the 1990s [1]. Inspectors were looking for WMDs (chemical and biological in that case), and did in fact find and destroy (at least some of) them. Iraq went through the trouble of accommodating the US. That didn't help them in 2003. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Commiss...
mychael 9y ago
The pessimism in this thread is proportional to anti-Trumpism among HN commenters. This is a historic moment, but partisanship blinds us from acknowledging progress.
borkt 9y ago
This is making me wonder if Kim Jong Il has been executing officials and family so rapidly not because they were for peace, but rather because they were pushing a hard line agenda and he is the one who wanted to make peace with the south. It would be very interesting if it turns out that all of his previous public speech was actually forced, and he had to remove a lot of people before he could push through this agenda. Unlikely I'm sure but not impossible.
- whb07 9y ago
  I really wonder what his endgame to be is? What if he realizes the jig is up and he can do a peaceful transition and cash out entirely? He could be lord emperor of a shit empire or he could be a wealthy millionaire/billionaire in the real world. All he has to do is walk away from the mess. I wonder if the South Koreans and US would be down with him doing that?
  - ConceptJunkie 9y ago
    Scott Adams has had a number of very interesting (and I think insightful) pieces on North Korea and how Trump could be the first person in half a century to make the geopolitical situation with respect to North Korea better instead of worse. Here is one of them: http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/01/17/north-korea-can-become-switzerland-east/ http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/01/17/north-korea-can-become-sw...
- lpa22 9y ago
  This is an interesting theory, one big counterpoint is that he killed his escaped half-brother who was out of the regime for many years https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/01/asia/kim-jong-nam-murder-trial/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/01/asia...
Libturd 9y ago
LOLLIBTURDZ. TRUMP 2020
cloudkj 9y ago
What are the economic implications of a possible/eventual/inevitable reunification scenario that just become a bit more realistic? South Korea is already an economic powerhouse in its own right. I'm wondering more from the point of view of an investor - the public markets don't appear to be particularly swayed by the prospects, probably because the scenario is still farfetched and decades away, if possible.
- pm90 9y ago
  You can take a look at what happened after German unification to get an idea of what it would look like. To be sure, this is a frequent topic of discussion in South Korea, and this precise situation has been studied in some detail. The consensus seems to be to NOT do what the Germans did: It has been economically prohibitive, and East Germany is still noticeably behind the West in economic development. And the economic difference between the two Koreas at the moment is far, far greater today than the difference between the two Germany's in the 1990's. There are also cultural factors: North Korean workers are used to working under Communism, will they accept working under a capitalist elite? That being said, a thought experiment with a Unified Korea is rather interesting. North Korean labor would perhaps be cheaper; South Korean companies could outsource manufacturing to the North instead of to China and still remain globally competitive. The North has vast mineral resources which could be exploited. A land route to China would increase Korean-Chinese trade immensely. So generally it would look very good economically.
calimac 9y ago
You retards cannot Take the HRC filters out of your algorithm. TRUMP Changed everything. All the footsie B.S. has stopped. Remember, Clinton gave NK the Russian Nuclear reactors. Remember, Eric Schmidt setup NK communications network. Remember, Jared Cohen was with Schmidt All these people are out! Now NK has a chance to make a deal with TRUMP and Xi. So he did. It's called negotiation. You pencil heads can be so f'ing dense and incredulously biased sometimes.
drak0n1c 9y ago
Many comments trying to explain the US contribution are distracted by Twitter. That was just a show backing up bigger moves. The US started targeting specific Russian and Chinese smugglers who have been allowing the North Korean nobility to skirt the general sanctions for decades. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sanctions-chinese-and-russian-companies-and-individuals-for-conducting-business-with-north-korea/2017/08/22/78992312-8743-11e7-961d-2f373b3977ee_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sa... Previous administrations avoided taking this extra step, due to realpolitik cargo cult fears about souring Russia/China and retaliation from a desperate and truly cut off North Korean elite. President Trump decided to call their bluff.
sateesh 9y ago
Though I think bloombert doesn't carry sensational headlines, the report of the same event from "The Economist" is rather muted (https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21741238-moon-jae-and-kim-jong-un-seem-have-got-house-fire https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21741238-moon-jae-and-ki...), and mentions that results of the meet are insubstantial.
zpatel 9y ago
Per Tim beal (Asia expert), the two Koreas making peace is not something that is in line with western divide and rule policy but washington would not admit the uneasiness about this..interesting perspective.
pow_pp_-1_v 9y ago
I haven't read through all the comments here but so far I haven't seen anyone give credit to Kim Jong Un. He's probably a pretty smart dude and has been planning these moves ever since he was a kid. At the end of all this, he will agree to "denuclearize" by reducing his nuclear stockpile over a very long time period; promise to stop doing nuclear research etc. In return he will get a ton of foreign aid, much weakened sanctions against his country and legitimacy in the international stage. But who knows. I am no expert.
- malnourish 9y ago
  Sure, give him some credit. In the same breath that he allowed for and committed atrocities against his people.
  - flycaliguy 9y ago
    He definitely inherited a unique job. This is a new era of realism in politics. One which is trying to overstep the sort of roadblocks comments like yours introduce. I for one want to try this for a bit.
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      This is a new era of realism in politics. For most of history, politics is realism, just with an overlay of reality distortion to steer things sometimes.
  - vkou 9y ago
    Governments that don't repress their own people are an outlier, not the norm. Yet, every time Belgium, or the United Kingdom, or Canada or the Unite States is brought up, we don't always have the thread of discussion dominated by all the awful, but irrelevant things that they have done, or are doing.
    - Viliam1234 9y ago
      What prevents you from posting "Exactly like North Korea!" whenever Belgium or UK or Canada or US are mentioned? I definitely don't think this would be a smart idea, but... be the change you want to see in the world!
mlb_hn 9y ago
North Korea has wanted a peace treaty for some time. E.g. 2016 Rand did an analysis on North Korea wanting a peace treaty to get the US to withdraw from South Korea (https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/05/behind-north-koreas-bid-for-a-peace-treaty.html https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/05/behind-north-koreas-bid-fo...). They wanted a peace treaty under Kim Jong Un's father as well (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-korea-north/north-korea-calls-for-peace-treaty-to-replace-armistice-idUSTRE60A0QV20100111 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-korea-north/north-korea-c...). Everyone seems to be forgetting that the reason that WE have refused to sign a peace treaty for decades is because of the human rights violations in North Korea. I have no idea how the narrative switched to North Korea wanting a peace treaty as a concession from them.
- gtm1260 9y ago
  It's interesting that our continued insistence on not signing a peace treaty because of humans rights violations has allowed them to continue for even longer.
  - mlb_hn 9y ago
    That could be accurate. That's not the point though - the issue is that there are all these articles being written about North Korea wanting a peace treaty as if it's something new, when North Korea's always wanted the peace treaty.
    - 794CD01 9y ago
      Is that really an "issue" if that rewriting of history is what finally brings peace?
      - talltimtom 9y ago
        Yes. People rewriting history is always an issue no matter what the gain. Should we let Germany erase the holocaust if they donate sufficiently large sums to charity? Should we forget about the human rights issues in North Korea just so we can label the current situation peaceful, and pretend they do not exist?
fuscy 9y ago
How can the war end? The entire premise was the pursuit of unified true Korea and I can’t see the North turning a democratic leaf or the South accepting a totalitarian rule. What about all the weapons aimed towards the South? Truly suspicious things are happening.. on both sides.
- pm90 9y ago
  You can always change premises. While both sides express that premise, I don't see the North Korean Regime just giving up its power. Perhaps Kim, like Deng Xiaoping, might introduce the economic reforms that his country really needs.
foxyv 9y ago
It'll be interesting to see if the removal of the DMZ will result in mass migration to the more affluent south. I wonder if they will have NIMBY debates similar to those we have about the Central American migration to the USA and Canada.
jakeogh 9y ago
Stockholm Syndrome is much more common than MSM readers think. Ask yourself, do you really -know- who writes the news you consume? NYT is an instructive example: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg Who said they would fix this problem over a year ago? Who ridiculed that assertion and called his negotiation tactics "dangerous"? This is amazing to see, both the reality and the denial.

673 points by almost_usual 9y ago

21 9y ago

From the Guardian, which can't be accused of being a Trump lover: > This system of indoctrination and propaganda complicates any official announcement of the Trump meeting. An ideological framework must be devised to explain the talks with the enemy; and regardless of how they are presented, there is an uncomfortable margin for the “infallible” leader to be seen to fail in his aims. > Trump is a volatile opponent who telegraphed his impatience even before the two men fixed a place to talk, warning he would walk away if he thought the preparations weren’t going anywhere. > But this unpredictability is the reason there are talks at all. Trump’s barrage of verbal and Twitter attacks on North Koreans – which have been reported there – led Pyongyang to question if it was, for the first time in a generation, facing a US president willing to attack them, experts say. > Officials there have long calculated that no US president would risk lives in Seoul with an attack on the North. But under Trump that is no longer a safe assumption, says Andrei Lankov, professor of Korean Studies at Kookmin University. > Kim, like his predecessors, has proved adept at manipulating regional and world powers into providing aid and political support while offering little in return. Now Kim may at last be forced into making real changes to stave off looming political and economic crises. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/20/north-korea-pyongyang-kim-jong-un-donald-trump https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/20/north-korea-py...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
wslh 9y ago
Madman theory? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
- kneel 9y ago
  The art of the deal
pavlov 9y ago
Nixon took the same approach and called it the “Madman Theory”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory As a politician, Trump is a strange hybrid of Nixon and Berlusconi. I don’t think he’s consciously emulating Nixon on this though, he just has similar instincts.
- azernik 9y ago
  The most efficient way to look crazy is to actually be crazy.
collyw 9y ago
Is it fair to say that Trump has done more for world peace than Obama now?
- frockington 9y ago
  He needs to drone a few more Americans over seas to beat Obama
- lmm 9y ago
  It'll be 10 years or more before we can really answer that question. Trump's talks could work out exactly as planned or they could trigger a nuclear war, or anything in between. Were Obama's calls on Egypt/Libya/Tunisa/... the right ones for the sake of the long term? It's hard to say we'll ever know for sure.
  - misja111 9y ago
    Israel and Saudi Arabia are also getting along surprisingly well lately. See e.g. http://www.euronews.com/2017/12/26/view-saudi-israel-alliance-will-be-driving-force-of-new-middle-east http://www.euronews.com/2017/12/26/view-saudi-israel-allianc...
    - elgenie 9y ago
      That's more about counterbalancing Iran in the region and is an "enemy-of-my-enemy" alliance of convenience. The ability to play Iraq and Iran against each other that used to exist went by the wayside when Saddam was toppled and got replaced with nothing.
  - collyw 9y ago
    Obama didn't really do much do justify his world peace prize. Surely getting this far deserves a little credit, no? Or are we all supposed to be of "everything Trump does is bad" line of thinking on here as well? (Looking at the down votes on my original comment, apparently so).
    - 9y ago
matwood 9y ago
TLDR; when my mom would threatened punishment it was a suggestion, when my dad threatened punishment it was a mandate.
- koolba 9y ago
  If you're smart about it you don't make threats at all. The threats need to be inferred and the enforcement immediate.
  - xienze 9y ago
    > If you're smart about it you don't make threats at all. The threats need to be inferred and the enforcement immediate. And how'd that work out for the last however many presidents?
    - koolba 9y ago
      > And how'd that work out for the last however many presidents? I was referring to raising children.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  The recent strike on Syria may have sobered Kim up a bit
gadders 9y ago
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Covzire 9y ago
Peter Zeihan had some really interesting things to say about Kim Jung Un that completely expanded how I viewed NK. https://youtu.be/feU7HT0x_qU?t=3928 https://youtu.be/feU7HT0x_qU?t=3928 Edit: The gist of the prevailing theory is that in 1994, days before NK was supposed to talk to SK about re-unification, they suffered a coup. Since at least Kim Jung Il's death, Kim Jung Un has been reversing that coup to realize his grandfather's previous plans.

onetimemanytime 9y ago

NK's Kim would be stupid to give them up, see what happened to a guy a named Saddam and to another named Muammar. Assad, if not for Russia would have the next one. He can slow development down in return for aid...and milk them for decades.

IIAOPSW 9y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Obviously everyone wants peace but realistically doing what you said is the rational thing for NK to do and there is tons of historical precedent. The only state to ever denuclearize and not regret it is South Africa.
- pavlov 9y ago
  Sweden had a nuclear weapons program in 1946-68, and probably doesn’t regret terminating it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_weapons_of_mass_d... It wasn’t close to delivering actual warheads though.
- bloak 9y ago
  But is today's South Africa the same thing as the previous South Africa which had nuclear weapons? Are the people who authorised and developed South Africa's nuclear weapons still living in that part of the world?
  - neuro_imager 9y ago
    South Africa didn't 'denuclearise' in the sense of giving up arms. They had a change to a completely incompetent government who wouldn't know how to spell 'nuclear' let alone fathom the scientific research and economic and political strategy required to run such a program. And given that nuclear scientists and competent political strategists tend to be smart, they don't hang around in swamps very long.
- vixen99 9y ago
  Using downvotes as any kind of metric is usually (perhaps not always) nuts.

tobyhinloopen 9y ago

This is just a PR show... the war isn’t over until the NK population is free

have_faith 9y ago
Sometimes perception of something happening is all you need to make something happen. See: Crypto prices
cjslep 9y ago
The big question is if China would allow it. The answer 60 years ago was a violent "no".
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  If North Korea remains its own state buy they achieve some sense of peace, China would be happiest. The US would have little justification for keeping their military on the peninsula and would have to find new justification for the size of their military presence in Japan. China would still have a buffer between themselves and a US ally. If they somehow joined into one country (doesn’t seem likely near term but let’s say it happens) the same element with the US military withdrawal remains. But China loses the buffer zone. They’d be less happy but probably not unhappy. The rhetoric out of NK, especially since they developed nukes, could not have made China happy. All it did was help justify the US military presence in the region. This harms some of China’s objectives and also keeps the US physically and politically present in what they see as their part of the world. Peace here could strengthen Chinese political influence, especially if they can claim and justify that they were key players in achieving this peace.
  - PakG1 9y ago
    The most likely path forward is for North Korea to develop using the Chinese model without all the Chinese mistakes (eg. learn all the lessons that China learned the hard way without making the same mistakes). This path forward would likely satisfice all parties, though China would probably come out a bit ahead in the grand scheme of things.

sudosteph 9y ago

I never thought I'd see this happen. I know it's Orwellian, but the concept of permanent cold war didn't seem that unlikely. It's weird to think that my grandfather fought in the Korean war and his child and grandchildren all grew up wondering if and when it was going to come to a head again. Though I guess in the grand scheme of things, there have been some much longer (and bloodier) wars in history which are barely a paragraph in history text books today. I'm not incredibly familiar with the situation as it stands, but is re-unification a legitimate possibility? I mean, I don't see Kim Jong-Un giving up power, but I could see them wanting to claim re-unification at least from a cultural perspective, like they did in the Olympics.

rtpg 9y ago
I talked to a "wall expert" in college who mentioned the severe strain East Germany was on West Germany after reunification, because of the economic disparity. Her theory was that reunification of the Koreas would be very messy given the economic disparity between the two nations, and that SK doesn't want it. That being said I would hope that NK actually goes along with joint projects with its neighbors. Not like the aid will stop if they're more amicable. The politics become a bit less rough if we're still talking about 2 regimes I think
- patall 9y ago
  That (about Germany) is only partially true. Sure, the whole german state made the reunification financially possible but most of the state owned stuff (economic land & buildings etc) ended up being owned by the Bund and not the federal states. Most of it was (and still is) privatized while the federal states, citites and people having not much money which lead to many (somewhat richer) people from the west being able to buy cheap property, land and some profitable companies. So to sum my points up: I could totally be in the South Koreans interest to reunify in order to buy cheap property in the north (and at the same time a very good reason for North Koreans to not want it, even though they would gain an immediate financial benefit through it).
  - _Codemonkeyism 9y ago

gaius 9y ago

I expect this will be a chapter in The Art Of The Deal vol II

fnord123 9y ago
I'm very naive of NK/SK politics but I do wonder how much of this was influenced by installation of John Bolton who is absolutely frothing at the mouth for a war with NK.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  Or Mike Pompeo, who secretly met with Kim before being confirmed as Secretary of State.
- Presquare 9y ago
  Trump is often described as narsisstic, petty, childish, unpredictable etc. and he seems much more likely to act based on personal emotions rather than "rational cost/benefit analysis". And then you have Bolton who seems to be hoping for a war. These aren't the types most of us would want as our leaders, but they make extremely scary enemies when they are leading the most powerful military in the world. Normally nothing serious will happen even if Russia or NK test their boundaries, and they know it. But now, with Trump and Bolton in charge, their casual threats can suddenly have real consequences for them. I would be surprised if this didn't have a significant effect on how other countries decide to interact with the USA.

golergka 9y ago

Trump's madman tactic turned out to be much more effective than everyone gave him credit for. Who would have thought.

pavlov 9y ago
I’m worried about what will happen when NK inevitably backtracks and fails to deliver on promises of denuclearization. If Trump is still in office at that time, he’ll look back to the 2017 brinkmanship as a triumph and want to overdo himself somehow. With hawks like Bolton offering him advice, who knows how far it can go?
- golergka 9y ago
  > If Trump is still in office at that time, he’ll look back to the 2017 brinkmanship as a triumph and want to overdo himself somehow. Which would be a completely rational thing to do. > With hawks like Bolton offering him advice, who knows how far it can go? This question is the main reason for the current development - unlike previous american presidents, Trump plays the madman very convincingly. Of course, he has to be ready to put his money where his mouth is if he wants to continue to be taken seriously.
  - pavlov 9y ago
    > Which would be a completely rational thing to do. Escalating a nuclear crisis for spectacle value is rational if you’re a reality TV host and you believe each season of the show must be bigger and more exciting.
    - golergka 9y ago
      If you want the world to believe your word, you've got to stand by it. There's much more value in it than just "spectacle".
louhike 9y ago
Maybe it's giving it too much credit to say it happened because of him or that it was what he planned.

auganov 9y ago

The big story I think many are missing is - what happens if the US+SK manages to completely flip NK into a pro-western nation.

Shivetya 9y ago
Well, can we buy the NK leadership out? By that I mean convince them to get on a path of full integration with the South leading. It would take some guarantees of protection from prosecution and as well insuring their lifestyles. All costs well worth it to free a nation from the situation they are in.
- umanwizard 9y ago
  Why should they trust us to keep our end of the bargain?
mathgeek 9y ago
I have to admit... this is the first time in my life I've considered peaceful reunification as a realistic possibility.
- aerovistae 9y ago
  But consider this: what would happen to the Kim family if reunification occurred? He would have to be tried for crimes against humanity, and if he realized he was going to be sent to prison, why would he go without a fight? How could this possibly come to pass? The only way it could happen would be if he were completely pardoned, which is logical if it benefits the greater good at no further cost, but very against human nature. In all likelihood, by his perception, he's done nothing wrong! So...it won't be something to discuss, for him. It would be a great offense and a threat.
  - eadmund 9y ago
    > The only way it could happen would be if he were completely pardoned, which is logical if it benefits the greater good at no further cost, but very against human nature. It's happened in the past, e.g. with Pinochet — and later on the Spaniards went after him anyway, in spite of the amnesty and in spite of the bad example this would set for future dictators.

bitL 9y ago

So Kim's nuclear test site collapsed, likely destroying years of work, necessary equipment and possibly hit trained human personnel, so he suddenly went on a "tour for peace". Can't say I am unhappy.

nsnick 9y ago
That's not how underground nuclear testing works. The bombs are not developed or stored inside the mountain where they test. There would have been no one inside the mountain during the test. The mountain collapsed during the test. Kim probably thinks that his bombs are powerful enough and reliable enough for him to have a strong negotiating position.
- bitL 9y ago
  Unless the blast was much stronger and hit distant equipment never meant to be affected which is difficult to replace. Of course the bombs aren't developer/stored at a test site, but without proper test site they still might not be entirely usable in an ICBM or in a submarine, and too large to fit into a bomber to pose any non-local threat.
jmartrican 9y ago
Is this a known fact or hypothesis?
- T-A 9y ago
  As close to known fact as you can get without inspecting the site in person. It started with warnings from Chinese geologists last fall [1], was followed by unofficial news of a partial collapse which left 200 tunnel workers dead [2][3], and then by papers by two different groups concluding that the site has collapsed [4]. [1] http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2117340/chinese-scientists-warn-north-korea-about-disaster-threat-nuclear http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2117340/chine... [2] https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/873443/north-korea-nuclear-accident-Punggye-ri-tunnel-collapse-kim-jong-un https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/873443/north-korea-nucl... [3] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-01/about-200-died-at-north-korea-nuclear-site-tv-asahi-reports https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-01/about-200... [4] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43894394 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43894394

spodek 9y ago

What changed that North Korea would be serious this time? I can't think of much. On the contrary, they seem stronger. Maybe they feel they have enough to negotiate more favorable terms than ever before. Maybe the borders have become so porous to outside information coming in that they feel change is inevitable so they'd do better to be in front of it. I can't get past that on a personal level, the decision-makers, in particular Kim Jong Un's family, are responsible for many people's suffering and deaths, which I would think would make them fear too much freedom among the survivors. People hunted Nazis for generations. Wouldn't the North Korean decision-makers fear being hunted? Meanwhile, China has been invaded more than once from the Korean peninsula. How willing will they be to lose a buffer between themselves and U.S. military bases?

empath75 9y ago
Combination of trump’s unpredictability, being able to negotiate from a position of strength and a South Korean leader who wants to pursue peace.
asfasgasg 9y ago
A possibly highly irrational US president in a world where other US ground conflicts are winding down? I wonder this too. I expect we won't really know until we have a decade or two of hindsight to try to understand.
- fahadkhan 9y ago
  Let's hope Trump weakening the US politically and economically plays out well for the world.
  - smhost 9y ago
    It won't, because America has a habit of doing American things whenever it has too much economic anxiety.
    - cvwright 9y ago

nl 9y ago

One should note that North Korea is now in a position where they can appear to make generous concessions. They are a nuclear power, and there is no way they will ever give that up, no matter how much they promise they will. They have done it in the past and will again. In case it isn't clear, "denuclearization" means the removal of the US nuclear shield from the Korean peninsular and from Japan. For those who aren't aware, the current US/Japan alliance guarantees the US nuclear arsenal will protect Japan (and South Korea)[1]. That is why those countries haven't pursued their own nuclear arms program. This will be a big problem. If North Korea offers to denuclearize then there will be huge pressure on the US to withdraw from South Korea. North Korea is utterly untrustworthy on this of course, but that's a hard argument to make if they appear to be making reasonable concessions. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_umbrella https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_umbrella

dis-sys 9y ago
> If North Korea offers to denuclearize then there will be huge pressure on the US to withdraw from South Korea. then just borrow more money to maintain the presence there. when US treasury bond yield is reaching 3% and the public debt is more than 20 trillion, who cares about some extra billion $ spent there.
- nl 9y ago
  The pressure will come from elements in the South Korean public, and it’s not over any financial issues.
  - dis-sys 9y ago
    more than 20 trillion public debt as of today, and it is increasing faster. Eventually, the federal revenue is going to be less than the interests that need to be paid annually. what US is going to do about it? explain to debt collectors that some elements in South Korea want US troops there?
    - nl 9y ago

MH15 9y ago

It all becomes obvious now. I told people for years that Kim Jong Un wouldn't have ever built his nuclear arsenal if the entire first world hadn't believed he was stupid. However, only recently I (and others) have been starting to think about the long term- if the two Koreas manage to build a lasting peace what does that make Kim Jong Un? Literally the greatest leader North Korea has ever had. It will also be interesting to see how far modernization goes in North Korea. Will he actually address his human rights issues or will nothing really change? Aside, I can see Trump using this in his 2020 campaign if this plays out in an American way. Do you think this could be a platform?

ataturk 9y ago
It's worse than that--NK didn't "build a nuclear arsenal." They were GIVEN a nuclear arsenal. Let that sink in. Who wanted to be nuclear armed in order to blackmail the whole world? I know it sounds like a Bond film plot, but I think we'll eventually find out how it really came to be that NK got the bomb rather abruptly and where that tech and know-how originated. It wasn't from China, either.
mstade 9y ago
Given Trump’s base, I’d be surprised if they gave two cents about what happens on the other side of the world.
- Libturd 9y ago
  comments like this are why trump won, and why he'll win 2020. you just don't get it you fucking dolts LOL!

indescions_2018 9y ago

Massive. Overnight the calculus has shifted from containment to re-unification. The blue "Peninsula Flag" under which athletes of both nations marched in the Olympics was indeed prescient. Despite its interpretation in NK news broadcasts as a symbol of "autonomous unification". With the historical inevitability of the masses in the south adopting a revolutionary consciousness and being absorbed into the north. Today, we can take it to be a universal symbol of peace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Unification_Flag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Unification_Flag Here at home, it gives Trump the necessary political capital going into primary season and the Midterm congressional elections. And perhaps even a shared Nobel. But low key bragging rights may actually belong to Xi. If NK does liberalize, it will be Beijing providing the investment. "May you live in interesting times" indeed ;)

happyrock 9y ago
> With the historical inevitability of the masses in the south adopting a revolutionary consciousness and being absorbed into the north. Please explain. Why would this be "inevitable"?

dantillberg 9y ago

This is a trap. South Korea and the United States are politically weak right now -- not necessarily the leaders, but the political systems are at a low point of unity and resolve. Neither country really wants to deal with North Korea right now. People in each country would like this drama to be over, because it feels dangerous and intractable. The leaders in each country would love to deliver that feeling to us. Kim Jong-un has an incredibly strong hand. He has nuclear missiles at his disposal, with apparently rapid progress toward increasing their range. He knows that other nations are fearful of those weapons, and that they won't do anything that risks putting them on the receiving end of even one. We've had one bold historic headline after another now: Kim Jong-un has telegraphed a desire to denuclearize and to end the Korean war. He has raised the hopes of South Koreans and of Americans just enough that they each want a deal now, and their leaders now need to deliver. But the price has not yet been negotiated. What will be the price? Will Kim promise to stop further nuclear development? Will Kim promise to stop further missile development? Will Kim promise not to help other states develop nuclear missiles? Will Kim promise not to radically modernize his military in other ways as the floodgates of trade open? Promises are inexpensive and reversible. Will he actually take any real steps to diminish or eliminate his nuclear and military power? I doubt it. Kim's not an idiot. He only needs to present the illusion. People in the West seem to believe that Kim has experienced some sort of rebirth as a student of peace and nonviolence of late. But there's been no explanation and no demonstration (to my ears) of where that came from. It's possible perhaps that Xi Jinping whispered wonderful ideas and/or threats in Kim Jong-un's ear when he visited, but that's opaque to us and media I've read seems to be ignorant of such potential influence. If Kim were so serious, we should need him to demonstrate that credibly to us, through actions that are costly for him to take: in particular, pitching this change of vision directly and passionately to the populace of North Korea. Kim Jong-un wants to get out from under the chokehold of heavy trade sanctions. He wants to be legitimized in the international community as the leader of a real nation. He wants to modernize both his military and his nation and his personal life. He probably dreams of visiting Paris and Manhattan. It is my belief that he will be able to get these things -- without giving up nuclear weapons, missiles, nor giving up his political or military power over North Korea. From Kim's perspective, democratic politicians are weak and manipulable, and he will find it to be especially true right now. (edit: s/telescoped/telegraphed/ -- thanks!)

TorKlingberg 9y ago

Am I the only one who thinks this is happening mainly because of political shifts in South Korea? 2013-2017 the South Korean president was Park Geun-hye of the conservative Saenuri Party. They generally have a hostile attitude towards North Korea. In late 2016 she had a major scandal, was impeached, and Moon Jae-in of the more liberal Democratic Party won. They are generally more willing no talk to the North. He is the person meeting Kim today.

opmac 9y ago
Yes, you're literally the only one.
murph-almighty 9y ago
Unrelated, but the scandal that got Park kicked out was wild. Never thought someone trying to force their daughter into a college would lead to the president of SK resigning.
- girvo 9y ago
  South Korean politic scandals are fascinating to watch from the outside... must suck to have to deal with if you lived there though. I spent six months in Busan, not long enough for any of that myself and I was too young to have given a damn about politics anyway
vivekd 9y ago
I would doubt this because from 1998 to 2008 Korea has had liberal presidents who had a policy of engagement towards North Korea and we didn't get peace in that time. While getting rid of Park Geun-Hye certainly made this easier - I think this has more to do with Kim Jong Un and also the warm reception N. Korea got at the recent winter Olympics in South Korea. That said I would be cautious how far this would go. I suspect a lot of N. Koreas militaristic acts and statements over the years is not because of any actual desire but war, but just posturing to help in negotiations over tariffs and aid. I am also going to take the unpopular opinion and say that Trump does deserve some credit. Under many past Presidents, the N. Korean government knew America would never use military force and acted accordingly. Under Trump, they have good reason to be concerned about the possibility of military force and are taking a more cautious and reconciliatory approach. I think the North Koreans are well aware that militaristic posturing won't get them very far with Trump the way it did with past presidents.

toblender 9y ago

I can sense the skepticism in the comments, but this is amazing news! All those people suffering from lack will have a chance to take part in our modern abundance. I can only imagine what will happen when NK opens it's doors to SK fully. There will be a massive demand for good and services. Exciting times!

elvirs 9y ago

I think, unfortunately, all of this is just a show put on by NK because and Iran has paid them to do it. In the first week of May lifting US sanctions off Iran has to be renewed and Trump was 99% expected not to renew lifting those sanctions (a process started by Obama). Now by making this move NK is going to make US look like an unreliable peacemaker if Trump decides not to extend sanctions lifting off Iran.

bdunklau 9y ago

This is 100% Trump. Sorry if you're a Never-Trumper. But he did what no President has ever been able to do. And he did it by being STRONG, not weak. No one respects weak leadership like Obama and Carter. Strength is what other nations respect. #MAGA #MKGA

bdunklau 9y ago
down-voters can't handle the truth LOL But don't worry. If you hate Trump, he'll be gone in 7 years.

maxxxxx 9y ago

This reminds me a little of the Gorbachev situation. He thought he could reform the Soviet Union but only started an uncontrollable process for its disintegration. Makes me wonder if Kim is just naive thinking he can open up his country while staying in power or has some smart plan. Personally I think he not knowingly has started the process of ending his regime.

hencq 9y ago
Perhaps. On the other hand, China watched the events in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union with great interest and adapted in a way that kept the Communist Party in power. Kim might see that as a model instead.

caligarn 9y ago

I’m pretty shocked no one in this thread gives credit to China. Kim Jong Un did travel to Beijing in an armored car and met with Xi Jinping. China has also been levying sanctions and restricting tourist travel etc into the country. China is quite annoyed at what Korea is doing to threaten its Belt Road plans. And with the Korean conflict potentially over, China has free reign to dominate Asia, and push up against Japan. No doubt Trump likely pushed things to a head with his Twitter diplomacy but an extremely globally ambitious China has to play a role in this as well.

Macuyiko 9y ago
Me too, and it wouldn't surprise me if a deal was struck: go for peace, you'll remain a buffer and own state. We'll support you and will be able to push investments into your country. Capitalism with socialist characteristics-style.
cryptonector 9y ago
If none of this would or could have happened without an American President who pushed hard on NK and China, then why should credit go to China?? (if not to deny Trump credit?)

loxs 9y ago

I have no idea how credible this is, but might be a good explanation on why is this happening: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/26/north-korea-nuclear-test-site-collapses/552974002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/26/north-k...

cryptonector 9y ago
It's credible, but it's not the explanation. The reason this is happening is that DJT made it clear that he would starve NK until they abandoned their nukes. Then he made it clear to China that the US would hit China's pocket book real hard if they did not cooperate. Then China made it clear to Kim that the jig is up. Kim doesn't want to hang from a lamp post, and neither do his henchmen. So Kim sued for peace.
- loxs 9y ago
  So we are nominating him for some of the next years' peace Nobel prizes? That would be a fun sight :D
  - cryptonector 9y ago
    Peace through strength. That's not the kind of talk that the Nobel folks like to hear. My guess is they won't give it to DJT.
    - monocasa 9y ago
      I mean, Kissinger got a Nobel Peace Prize.
      - cryptonector 9y ago
        Sure, it's possible it will happen.
  - frockington 9y ago
    Obama got it for being elected. It'll be interesting to see how they play it with DJT

noetic_techy 9y ago

Theory: Xi put massive pressure on North Korea to sue for peace during the armored train trip Kim made to China because he doesn't want Trump/Pentagon using it as an excuse for a more immediate military buildup in the region and the possible nuclearization of SK and Japan in response. Japan was already starting to flex more. Xi probably threatened to cut them off and even invade NK if he didn't cool it, they were becoming too much of a liability. I think China thinks Washington is crazy enough now for a pre-emtive strike (Madman theory?), and that could drag China into a war they are not ready for. The US still struck Syria despite Russian threats, its not unfeasible to think the same applies to NK. China's long term goal is to take back Taiwan, secure their back yard and ultimately become the hub of Eurasian continent, but they need to buy a couple more decades time, they are not yet ready for a true face off. That said however, its also possible this has no effect really, China's posturing itself is enough of a reason for a buildup and Washington can still spin it this way. Like I said, buys more time but probably doesn't negate the inevitable face off. In the end, NK will be authoritarian "modern" like China is "modern". I can't imagine Kim giving up that much power, just shifting it to a better model that keeps him in the loop. This was probably the "out" Xi gave him during his visit. China may even turn this form of authoritarianism into a commodity they can sell to other dictators. "Look at NK then and now! See what our political system / AI facial recognition technology can do for you and your people? Just take a low interest loan from us and we will build the system for you and show you how to use it. You can be advanced just like China AND be in power forever!". It's truly naive to think there is anything less than geo-political calculus here. If you think this is a momentous occasion, you're fooling yourself with rose colored glasses. That being said, I'd love to hear some alternative theories. Shoot me down. Pop my bubble.

wilonth 9y ago
I mean, the whole world would be cheering if NK would do that. We totally don't need to care that NK is an authoritarian regime if it's being nice and doing a good job for its citizen and the world. Whatever peaceful version of NK we'd get would be light years better than this looming WW3 threat we've been worrying about this whole decade.
hangonhn 9y ago

amai 9y ago

Maybe the fact, that North Koreas nuclear test site has collapsed, has something to do with the progress in the negotiations: http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2143171/north-koreas-nuclear-test-site-has-collapsed-and-may-be-why-kim-jong-un http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/214...

JBReefer 9y ago
Aren't test sites just a place you set off the bombs? Seems like the worst possible place to store anything of value.

thanatropism 9y ago

It will be interesting to watch Cuba now. Like it or not, there is at least a change in tone from Obama to Trump in what the US is willing to accomodate in Cuba. There's this whole debate going on about Trump's effect in the Korean process, but Cuba will be a much cleaner test.

sambull 9y ago

This won't last, unless the world decides to give up nukes. NK says they've miniaturized a weapon, have the delivery system and will denuclearize when the 'world' does. [0] https://www.reuters.com/video/2018/04/21/north-korea-tv-says-the-country-will-sto?videoId=419880939&videoChannel=-13168 https://www.reuters.com/video/2018/04/21/north-korea-tv-says...

grrmx1 9y ago

The North isn't going to disarm. Nuclear weapons are their one deterrent against the US, who have shown in the past that they are willing to invade and destroy regimes that went through the trouble of disarming (Iraq, Lybia). So why would he disarm now, if he knows - for a fact - that ten years from now his goodwill will count for nothing with the next, presumably hostile, American administration? My guess is that in the next few months we will see none of the vague promises made today come to life. This will then be followed by retrenchment, with both sides blaming the other. I can already see Trump furiously blasting tweets about the treacherous North. Meanwhile, Kim will go on doing what his family has been doing for generations - play regional and global powers off each other in order to get small concessions from each of them, while keeping his personal dynasty intact. I hope it's not so, but logic suggests it is. The goal of every state is to survive. As long as the US poses a legitimate threat to the North, they are not going to willingly give up their one effective deterrent.

josefresco 9y ago
Iraq didn't "voluntarily disarm"
- TheForumTroll 9y ago
  They couldn't disarm of nukes they didn't have.
  - grrmx1 9y ago
    I was referring to the arms inspections that were taking place through the 90s. Iraq had some quantity of chemical and biological WMDs that the Americans were eager to destroy. Iraq let them. And then still got invaded. I was referring to this, when I said they disarmed.
- grrmx1 9y ago
  Iraq was subject to fairly intrusive US-lobbied inspection for much of the 1990s [1]. Inspectors were looking for WMDs (chemical and biological in that case), and did in fact find and destroy (at least some of) them. Iraq went through the trouble of accommodating the US. That didn't help them in 2003. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Commiss...

mychael 9y ago

The pessimism in this thread is proportional to anti-Trumpism among HN commenters. This is a historic moment, but partisanship blinds us from acknowledging progress.

borkt 9y ago

This is making me wonder if Kim Jong Il has been executing officials and family so rapidly not because they were for peace, but rather because they were pushing a hard line agenda and he is the one who wanted to make peace with the south. It would be very interesting if it turns out that all of his previous public speech was actually forced, and he had to remove a lot of people before he could push through this agenda. Unlikely I'm sure but not impossible.

whb07 9y ago
I really wonder what his endgame to be is? What if he realizes the jig is up and he can do a peaceful transition and cash out entirely? He could be lord emperor of a shit empire or he could be a wealthy millionaire/billionaire in the real world. All he has to do is walk away from the mess. I wonder if the South Koreans and US would be down with him doing that?
- ConceptJunkie 9y ago
  Scott Adams has had a number of very interesting (and I think insightful) pieces on North Korea and how Trump could be the first person in half a century to make the geopolitical situation with respect to North Korea better instead of worse. Here is one of them: http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/01/17/north-korea-can-become-switzerland-east/ http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/01/17/north-korea-can-become-sw...
lpa22 9y ago
This is an interesting theory, one big counterpoint is that he killed his escaped half-brother who was out of the regime for many years https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/01/asia/kim-jong-nam-murder-trial/index.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/10/01/asia...

Libturd 9y ago

LOLLIBTURDZ. TRUMP 2020

cloudkj 9y ago

What are the economic implications of a possible/eventual/inevitable reunification scenario that just become a bit more realistic? South Korea is already an economic powerhouse in its own right. I'm wondering more from the point of view of an investor - the public markets don't appear to be particularly swayed by the prospects, probably because the scenario is still farfetched and decades away, if possible.

pm90 9y ago
You can take a look at what happened after German unification to get an idea of what it would look like. To be sure, this is a frequent topic of discussion in South Korea, and this precise situation has been studied in some detail. The consensus seems to be to NOT do what the Germans did: It has been economically prohibitive, and East Germany is still noticeably behind the West in economic development. And the economic difference between the two Koreas at the moment is far, far greater today than the difference between the two Germany's in the 1990's. There are also cultural factors: North Korean workers are used to working under Communism, will they accept working under a capitalist elite? That being said, a thought experiment with a Unified Korea is rather interesting. North Korean labor would perhaps be cheaper; South Korean companies could outsource manufacturing to the North instead of to China and still remain globally competitive. The North has vast mineral resources which could be exploited. A land route to China would increase Korean-Chinese trade immensely. So generally it would look very good economically.

calimac 9y ago

You retards cannot Take the HRC filters out of your algorithm. TRUMP Changed everything. All the footsie B.S. has stopped. Remember, Clinton gave NK the Russian Nuclear reactors. Remember, Eric Schmidt setup NK communications network. Remember, Jared Cohen was with Schmidt All these people are out! Now NK has a chance to make a deal with TRUMP and Xi. So he did. It's called negotiation. You pencil heads can be so f'ing dense and incredulously biased sometimes.

drak0n1c 9y ago

Many comments trying to explain the US contribution are distracted by Twitter. That was just a show backing up bigger moves. The US started targeting specific Russian and Chinese smugglers who have been allowing the North Korean nobility to skirt the general sanctions for decades. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sanctions-chinese-and-russian-companies-and-individuals-for-conducting-business-with-north-korea/2017/08/22/78992312-8743-11e7-961d-2f373b3977ee_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sa... Previous administrations avoided taking this extra step, due to realpolitik cargo cult fears about souring Russia/China and retaliation from a desperate and truly cut off North Korean elite. President Trump decided to call their bluff.

sateesh 9y ago

Though I think bloombert doesn't carry sensational headlines, the report of the same event from "The Economist" is rather muted (https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21741238-moon-jae-and-kim-jong-un-seem-have-got-house-fire https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21741238-moon-jae-and-ki...), and mentions that results of the meet are insubstantial.

zpatel 9y ago

Per Tim beal (Asia expert), the two Koreas making peace is not something that is in line with western divide and rule policy but washington would not admit the uneasiness about this..interesting perspective.

pow_pp_-1_v 9y ago

I haven't read through all the comments here but so far I haven't seen anyone give credit to Kim Jong Un. He's probably a pretty smart dude and has been planning these moves ever since he was a kid. At the end of all this, he will agree to "denuclearize" by reducing his nuclear stockpile over a very long time period; promise to stop doing nuclear research etc. In return he will get a ton of foreign aid, much weakened sanctions against his country and legitimacy in the international stage. But who knows. I am no expert.

malnourish 9y ago
Sure, give him some credit. In the same breath that he allowed for and committed atrocities against his people.
- flycaliguy 9y ago
  He definitely inherited a unique job. This is a new era of realism in politics. One which is trying to overstep the sort of roadblocks comments like yours introduce. I for one want to try this for a bit.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    This is a new era of realism in politics. For most of history, politics is realism, just with an overlay of reality distortion to steer things sometimes.
- vkou 9y ago
  Governments that don't repress their own people are an outlier, not the norm. Yet, every time Belgium, or the United Kingdom, or Canada or the Unite States is brought up, we don't always have the thread of discussion dominated by all the awful, but irrelevant things that they have done, or are doing.
  - Viliam1234 9y ago
    What prevents you from posting "Exactly like North Korea!" whenever Belgium or UK or Canada or US are mentioned? I definitely don't think this would be a smart idea, but... be the change you want to see in the world!

mlb_hn 9y ago

North Korea has wanted a peace treaty for some time. E.g. 2016 Rand did an analysis on North Korea wanting a peace treaty to get the US to withdraw from South Korea (https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/05/behind-north-koreas-bid-for-a-peace-treaty.html https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/05/behind-north-koreas-bid-fo...). They wanted a peace treaty under Kim Jong Un's father as well (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-korea-north/north-korea-calls-for-peace-treaty-to-replace-armistice-idUSTRE60A0QV20100111 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-korea-north/north-korea-c...). Everyone seems to be forgetting that the reason that WE have refused to sign a peace treaty for decades is because of the human rights violations in North Korea. I have no idea how the narrative switched to North Korea wanting a peace treaty as a concession from them.

gtm1260 9y ago
It's interesting that our continued insistence on not signing a peace treaty because of humans rights violations has allowed them to continue for even longer.
- mlb_hn 9y ago
  That could be accurate. That's not the point though - the issue is that there are all these articles being written about North Korea wanting a peace treaty as if it's something new, when North Korea's always wanted the peace treaty.
  - 794CD01 9y ago
    Is that really an "issue" if that rewriting of history is what finally brings peace?
    - talltimtom 9y ago
      Yes. People rewriting history is always an issue no matter what the gain. Should we let Germany erase the holocaust if they donate sufficiently large sums to charity? Should we forget about the human rights issues in North Korea just so we can label the current situation peaceful, and pretend they do not exist?

fuscy 9y ago

How can the war end? The entire premise was the pursuit of unified true Korea and I can’t see the North turning a democratic leaf or the South accepting a totalitarian rule. What about all the weapons aimed towards the South? Truly suspicious things are happening.. on both sides.

pm90 9y ago
You can always change premises. While both sides express that premise, I don't see the North Korean Regime just giving up its power. Perhaps Kim, like Deng Xiaoping, might introduce the economic reforms that his country really needs.

foxyv 9y ago

It'll be interesting to see if the removal of the DMZ will result in mass migration to the more affluent south. I wonder if they will have NIMBY debates similar to those we have about the Central American migration to the USA and Canada.

jakeogh 9y ago

Stockholm Syndrome is much more common than MSM readers think. Ask yourself, do you really -know- who writes the news you consume? NYT is an instructive example: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg Who said they would fix this problem over a year ago? Who ridiculed that assertion and called his negotiation tactics "dangerous"? This is amazing to see, both the reality and the denial.