I’m rather pleasantly surprised with the progress Trump has made on the North Korean front. This appears, at least to me, to be the most significant progress towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula that has made in the last couple of decades. Am I missing something here, or is this good news?
It is good news, if it actually takes hold. But we’ve tried it before:
Carter and North Korea: the 1994 Treaty Halting North Korea’s Development of Nuclear Weapons
Not even close - all they are saying is 'now that we have proven our nuclear and ICMB capabilites, we no loinger need to “test them”.
While a step - its nowhere close to allowing inspectors in or dropping the nuclear ambitions on whole - just saying “we dont need to test”.
If Kim thinks he can get more political mileage from starting missile testing, he will start it. If he thinks he will get more from stopping it, he will stop it. Trump may be only a pawn in the game of life.
I understand that it’s not complete denuclearization, or even all that close yet, but was your “not even close” directed at my understanding that “This appears… to be the most significant progress”? Is there some other happening that you’d point to as being more significant progress than this?
What exactly do you think Trump did that caused this?
This has everything to do with China providing economic subsidies to North Korea in exchange for the Kim regime cooling their heels on their nuclear ICBM program, and nothing to do with Trump’s ham-fisted “statesmanship” or Twitter war with Jong-un worthy of a couple of teenage rap star ‘frenemies’. Given the bumbling of the Trump Administration in nearly every interaction with both allies and adversaries, ascribing any positive outcome to Trump is like observing that the clock has to be at 12 at some time twice in a day.
Stranger
They have achieved their goals, which is “a seat at the table”. So, in a sense, we are playing into their hands, if that is your perspective. If news reports are accurate, Trump plans on meeting with Kim Jong-un, which in the old view of these type of things, elevates him on the world stage.
What ever happened to “we don’t negotiate with terrorists”?
Just last month, Trump’s carefully selected national security advisor John Bolton stated that North Korea can never be trusted, is on the verge of successfully miniaturizing its nuclear warheads while simultaneously working out the final issues with its proto-ICBMs, and is using the prospect of direct talks with the South Korea president and Trump as smoke-and-mirror stalling tactics to give the regime more time to finish its weapons development.
Back in September 2017, Bolton said:
The North Korean regime craves international respect and acceptance. Trump is giving up a major carrot by agreeing to meet with Kim with no preconditions and the steady drip of stories about NK agreeing to take their demand that American troops leave South Korea in any kind of deal and now this is setting NK up to appear “reasonable” and “peace-interested” when talks inevitably fail. Trump is too ignorant and self-obsessed to be much of a good negotiator and since the primary and only real goal of NK is regime preservation, giving up nukes is never realistic since it not only leaves them vulnerable militarily but removes the domestic justification for NK’s repressiveness, poverty, and the need for juche as compared to South Korea.
That’s always been something other than an ironclad rule. North Korea was added the the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism in 1988. Despite that, Jimmy Carter led an effort to reach an agreement with the North Koreans during the Clinton administration. GWB actually removed North Korea from the list in 2008, in an effort to assist ongoing negotiations with the regime. Trump had them added back to the list last year.
What are the odds that the test site they are so magnanimously closing is this one?
http://time.com/4981037/north-korea-damaged-nuclear-test-site/
This appears to be a fairly accurate statement - it is tied. There has been no progress made towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula in the last couple of decades and this is also no progress.
But I’ll take engaging in talks and empty gestures that are acknowledged with empty words over mutual threats and twitter rants over who has the larger … button.
This is nowhere close to the most significant progress.
One they lie. They’ve previously abandoned pursuit of nuclear weapons in international agreements. If true those statements would have been far more significant progression. They, obviously, didn’t follow through. One of the old saws of disarmament is “Trust but verify.” Previous behavior makes trust problematic. There’s no announcement about them allowing verification procedures.
This only abandons a tiny chunk of their nuclear enterprise. They said nothing about continuing to build and deploy nuclear weapons based on the lessons learned from the recent period of heavy testing. They also didn’t abandon continued research and development to support their nuclear enterprise. They only claim to be abandoning ballistic missile launches and live nuclear warhead tests along with one test site. That’s it.
They share/sell ballistic technology with other countries. One of those is Iran. Iran’s been conducting ballistic missile tests recently. Sharing technology with Iran that then gets test launched is one way to still get live fire test results at this point.
This looks a lot like a press release designed to influence international public opinion before upcoming negotiations.
So what was “the most significant progress”?
If you read the rest of the sentence - you’d be able to understand why its ‘not even close’.
This is nothing more than saying “we’ve proven we have them, we’re satisfied with our ability to make and launch as we see fit, we don’t need to test them”. Closing a test facility on that basis is actually more of a bold statement of “and now we’ll just use them”.
It sounds good on the surface - but underneath, its really more of a threat.
When was the last time US actively tested nuclear weapons ? 1992 - List of United States nuclear weapons tests - Wikipedia - would saying we’re closing our testing facilities have shit to do with our abiltiy to produce and use the weapons?
I’m not entirely pissing on Trump’s diplomacy, as I am one of the few progressives who will acknowledge that Hillary Clinton’s status quo diplomacy would have been unfruitful (putting it mildly). But let’s just wait until we get past the actual meeting itself before we start praising his accomplishments.
They’ve entered multiparty agreements to completely abandon their program before. They didn’t actually do it. Spending some time at least trying to give the appearance of not developing nukes had a more practical effect than a limited claim about restricting testing.
Going back to this post, I’d just like to point out that it’s the most significant progress toward denuclearization – after they have actually finished the process of demonstrating substantial nuclear capabilities.
I suspect that what Kim is saying is:
"Look, the fact is, we’ve got missiles, and we’ve got nuclear weapons. I know that, and more importantly, you know that. We could make more and more if we want and you would pay one hell of a price for trying to stop us. But the truth is, we’re not really interested in going that route. This being enemies of the world shit is getting kinda old. Instead, we’d rather you just stop putting sanctions on us, as they threaten my ability to govern over the long term. We want you to stop threatening our regime’s future through sanctions and political isolation; you guys want us to stop building nukes and shooting missiles over Japan. So we’ll cut you a deal. You end sanctions and maybe even move your military threat further away from us, and we’ll end nuclear and missile testing, and we might even be somewhat normal. I’ll look like a hero for normalizing my country and perhaps even possibly improving the economy and welfare of my people, and you’ll actually look like a legitimate global deal maker and possibly get reelected. So whaddya say, Orange Yankee, deal or no deal?
Trump might actually be tempted to take it. I’m not sure John Bolton would, though. This is where it would get interesting because Bolton represents a significant faction within the old “deep state,” which is that the United States doesn’t compromise power in exchange for peace. FWIW, I think Hillary Clinton somewhat had a worldview that was not too dissimilar. She’s probably more open to traditional diplomacy than the Walrus (Bolton), but that traditional diplomacy would mean North Korea making concessions first before actually holding up our end of the bargain. Kim’s not interested in that. His grandfather/father tried that with Bill Clinton and he got nowhere when Republicans pulled funding for the nuclear deal in the 1990s.
Last year, interstellar object 'Oumuamua was observed passing through our solar system. How about that Trump as leader of the free world, eh?
“in the last couple of decades”??
Dude, no progress could have been made on denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula two decades ago, because it was still denuclearized, thanks to the Clinton-era Agreed Framework. Which Republicans opposed from the get-go because it was ‘appeasement.’ And our new National Security Adviser had a hand in killing itduring the Bush years. And so by the middle of the '00s, NK was finally a nuclear power.
Any progress made by Republicans to address the problem of NK’s nukes is at best an attempt to undo the damage they did in enabling those nukes in the first place. I wish them well, but they don’t deserve our plaudits.