|
That is not what I said. I credited the recently elected(May, 2017) South Korean leader’s efforts over as being the biggest game changer. Trump and his team were willing help move that process forward. I think the exact same thing would have happened in Obama was in office.
|
I mean, given we have no ambassador to South Korea, we had no SoS until yesterday, and our diplomatic corps have generally been gutted, I find it difficult to believe that this administration played that much of a role here.
Maybe a capricious and unreliable US nudged the Koreas towards this, but I don't know how much "credit" you can assign for what is generally considered shit diplomacy just because it happened to result in this outcome. It's more that the US "influenced" this to happen, rather than "orchestrated" it in my mind.
It definitely looks like a good step forward... but there's a long road ahead for NK to join the international community.
|
|
|
Until I see the IAEA or UN Nuclear Council walk into the country, I'll remain skeptical.
Getting this close is big in itself. Now SK just has to hope trump doesn't try to be overly aggressive with his handshakes. (joke).
Will do more reading on the mountain collapse today and tomorrow since I'm off work.
|
On April 28 2018 00:37 plasmidghost wrote:
Will we see a reunified Korea at some point? I don't want things to be rushed, of course, but just a few months ago, I thought we would be bombing NK at some point with how tense things were
NK is still a terrible, violent and oppressive dictatorship. But it is one that is willing to hold off getting nukes and declare peace with SK. Unified Korea isn’t even on the horizon.
|
Trump is responsible for this because it was his isolationist views that caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. US diplomacy was the biggest obstacle to peace aside from the NK demand that the US leaves. There's not even a US ambassador to South Korea at the moment, which meant that Moon was free to pursue his own diplomacy. Meanwhile, the following quote (in particular the highlights as marked in bold) makes it clear that Trump's bellicose rhetoric on Twitter was intentional "bad cop" rhetoric and a way for Moon to play the "good cop" with Kim.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html
"Clearly, credit goes to President Trump," Kang told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in Seoul. "He's been determined to come to grips with this from day one."
Kang told Amanpour that the détente was unexpected. "I think we're all surprised. Obviously pleasantly surprised. I think by all indications we are headed towards a very successful summit between my president and Chairman Kim tomorrow."
She said that Moon's determination also played a role in the thaw. In her analysis, the combination of tough rhetoric and economic and travel sanctions were instrumental.
Kang admitted Presidents Moon and Trump have at times had "different messaging," but insisted that they maintained close consultations.
So yeah, this is basically all on Trump, whether you like it or not. Well, aside from the nuclear testing being effectively done, the mountain collapsing, and all that jazz. But that would have happened either way. Other US heads of state would have "made sure US interests are preserved", which effectively means stopping peace from developing. As we have seen in Syria.
|
On April 28 2018 00:37 plasmidghost wrote:
Will we see a reunified Korea at some point? I don't want things to be rushed, of course, but just a few months ago, I thought we would be bombing NK at some point with how tense things were
Not anytime soon I expect. With the lessons learned from Germany's reunification there's still a lot in terms of economy, geopolitics and society that means hastily attempting a reunification will be a mistake. Not to mention the daunting task of bringing North Korea up to standards to ease the transition, coming to terms or justice with their decades of horror as an oppressive regime and easing their people into a vastly different world. I'm still fairly skeptical about this change of face because North Korea has a penchant for turning back on their peace promises too.
And as for Trump, well, even I have to give him some credit for playing a part in this. It may just be the right conditions in East Asia that all aligned and worked out in his favour, but his good cop, bad cop routine may have done it. I just hope people won't forget the diplomatic efforts of everyone else like Moon in facilitating this situation and attribute it all to Trump, because Moon's approach is also a sea change in South Korea.
|
On April 28 2018 00:56 a_flayer wrote:Trump is responsible for this because it was his isolationist views that caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. US diplomacy was the biggest obstacle to peace aside from the NK demand that the US leaves. There's not even a US ambassador to South Korea at the moment, which meant that Moon was free to pursue his own diplomacy. Meanwhile, the following quote (in particular the highlights as marked in bold) makes it clear that Trump's bellicose rhetoric on Twitter was intentional "bad cop" rhetoric and a way for Moon to play the "good cop" with Kim. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.htmlShow nested quote +"Clearly, credit goes to President Trump," Kang told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in Seoul. "He's been determined to come to grips with this from day one."
Kang told Amanpour that the détente was unexpected. "I think we're all surprised. Obviously pleasantly surprised. I think by all indications we are headed towards a very successful summit between my president and Chairman Kim tomorrow."
She said that Moon's determination also played a role in the thaw. In her analysis, the combination of tough rhetoric and economic and travel sanctions were instrumental.
Kang admitted Presidents Moon and Trump have at times had "different messaging," but insisted that they maintained close consultations. So yeah, this is basically all on Trump, whether you like it or not. Well, aside from the nuclear testing being effectively done, the mountain collapsing, and all that jazz. But that would have happened either way. Other US heads of state would have "made sure US interests are preserved", which effectively means stopping peace from developing. As we have seen in Syria.
How do you reconcile caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. with So yeah, this is basically all on Trump
you're going Trump totally just let others do the work so now we have to give him all the credit? What???
|
South Korea and the US are bound to make claims that their diplomatic efforts were what triggered this and patting themselves on the back. Who would turn away this kind of publicity?
The other and more significant angle to my mind is what Xi Jinping wants and did behind the scenes as a result of his strengthened position in China. I'm sure South Korea and the US know, but they can't very well call them out when they're busy reaping the benefits of their successful "tough and flexible diplomacy".
|
On April 28 2018 01:14 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 00:56 a_flayer wrote:Trump is responsible for this because it was his isolationist views that caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. US diplomacy was the biggest obstacle to peace aside from the NK demand that the US leaves. There's not even a US ambassador to South Korea at the moment, which meant that Moon was free to pursue his own diplomacy. Meanwhile, the following quote (in particular the highlights as marked in bold) makes it clear that Trump's bellicose rhetoric on Twitter was intentional "bad cop" rhetoric and a way for Moon to play the "good cop" with Kim. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html"Clearly, credit goes to President Trump," Kang told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in Seoul. "He's been determined to come to grips with this from day one."
Kang told Amanpour that the détente was unexpected. "I think we're all surprised. Obviously pleasantly surprised. I think by all indications we are headed towards a very successful summit between my president and Chairman Kim tomorrow."
She said that Moon's determination also played a role in the thaw. In her analysis, the combination of tough rhetoric and economic and travel sanctions were instrumental.
Kang admitted Presidents Moon and Trump have at times had "different messaging," but insisted that they maintained close consultations. So yeah, this is basically all on Trump, whether you like it or not. Well, aside from the nuclear testing being effectively done, the mountain collapsing, and all that jazz. But that would have happened either way. Other US heads of state would have "made sure US interests are preserved", which effectively means stopping peace from developing. As we have seen in Syria. How do you reconcile caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. with So yeah, this is basically all on Trumpyou're going Trump totally just let others do the work so now we have to give him all the credit? What???
He's saying that US diplomacy actually hindered the peace process. I'd be interested in hearing how other administrations rejected such peace offerings while NK was making these kinds of concessions.
|
On April 28 2018 01:14 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 00:56 a_flayer wrote:Trump is responsible for this because it was his isolationist views that caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. US diplomacy was the biggest obstacle to peace aside from the NK demand that the US leaves. There's not even a US ambassador to South Korea at the moment, which meant that Moon was free to pursue his own diplomacy. Meanwhile, the following quote (in particular the highlights as marked in bold) makes it clear that Trump's bellicose rhetoric on Twitter was intentional "bad cop" rhetoric and a way for Moon to play the "good cop" with Kim. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html"Clearly, credit goes to President Trump," Kang told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in Seoul. "He's been determined to come to grips with this from day one."
Kang told Amanpour that the détente was unexpected. "I think we're all surprised. Obviously pleasantly surprised. I think by all indications we are headed towards a very successful summit between my president and Chairman Kim tomorrow."
She said that Moon's determination also played a role in the thaw. In her analysis, the combination of tough rhetoric and economic and travel sanctions were instrumental.
Kang admitted Presidents Moon and Trump have at times had "different messaging," but insisted that they maintained close consultations. So yeah, this is basically all on Trump, whether you like it or not. Well, aside from the nuclear testing being effectively done, the mountain collapsing, and all that jazz. But that would have happened either way. Other US heads of state would have "made sure US interests are preserved", which effectively means stopping peace from developing. As we have seen in Syria. How do you reconcile caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. with So yeah, this is basically all on Trumpyou're going Trump totally just let others do the work so now we have to give him all the credit? What???
Oh, right, when say "this is all on Trump" I mean "the US part of the development is all on Trump".
|
On April 28 2018 01:19 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 01:14 IyMoon wrote:On April 28 2018 00:56 a_flayer wrote:Trump is responsible for this because it was his isolationist views that caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. US diplomacy was the biggest obstacle to peace aside from the NK demand that the US leaves. There's not even a US ambassador to South Korea at the moment, which meant that Moon was free to pursue his own diplomacy. Meanwhile, the following quote (in particular the highlights as marked in bold) makes it clear that Trump's bellicose rhetoric on Twitter was intentional "bad cop" rhetoric and a way for Moon to play the "good cop" with Kim. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html"Clearly, credit goes to President Trump," Kang told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in Seoul. "He's been determined to come to grips with this from day one."
Kang told Amanpour that the détente was unexpected. "I think we're all surprised. Obviously pleasantly surprised. I think by all indications we are headed towards a very successful summit between my president and Chairman Kim tomorrow."
She said that Moon's determination also played a role in the thaw. In her analysis, the combination of tough rhetoric and economic and travel sanctions were instrumental.
Kang admitted Presidents Moon and Trump have at times had "different messaging," but insisted that they maintained close consultations. So yeah, this is basically all on Trump, whether you like it or not. Well, aside from the nuclear testing being effectively done, the mountain collapsing, and all that jazz. But that would have happened either way. Other US heads of state would have "made sure US interests are preserved", which effectively means stopping peace from developing. As we have seen in Syria. How do you reconcile caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. with So yeah, this is basically all on Trumpyou're going Trump totally just let others do the work so now we have to give him all the credit? What??? He's saying that US diplomacy actually hindered the peace process. I'd be interested in hearing how other administrations rejected such peace offerings while NK was making these kinds of concessions.
As far as I know, NK has never considered peace unless the US agreed to remove its troops. But the current leader of NK also only obtained power in 2011. I am sure there will be endless speculation about what changed internally to cause them to drop that demand.
|
On April 28 2018 01:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 01:19 Tachion wrote:On April 28 2018 01:14 IyMoon wrote:On April 28 2018 00:56 a_flayer wrote:Trump is responsible for this because it was his isolationist views that caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. US diplomacy was the biggest obstacle to peace aside from the NK demand that the US leaves. There's not even a US ambassador to South Korea at the moment, which meant that Moon was free to pursue his own diplomacy. Meanwhile, the following quote (in particular the highlights as marked in bold) makes it clear that Trump's bellicose rhetoric on Twitter was intentional "bad cop" rhetoric and a way for Moon to play the "good cop" with Kim. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html"Clearly, credit goes to President Trump," Kang told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in Seoul. "He's been determined to come to grips with this from day one."
Kang told Amanpour that the détente was unexpected. "I think we're all surprised. Obviously pleasantly surprised. I think by all indications we are headed towards a very successful summit between my president and Chairman Kim tomorrow."
She said that Moon's determination also played a role in the thaw. In her analysis, the combination of tough rhetoric and economic and travel sanctions were instrumental.
Kang admitted Presidents Moon and Trump have at times had "different messaging," but insisted that they maintained close consultations. So yeah, this is basically all on Trump, whether you like it or not. Well, aside from the nuclear testing being effectively done, the mountain collapsing, and all that jazz. But that would have happened either way. Other US heads of state would have "made sure US interests are preserved", which effectively means stopping peace from developing. As we have seen in Syria. How do you reconcile caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. with So yeah, this is basically all on Trumpyou're going Trump totally just let others do the work so now we have to give him all the credit? What??? He's saying that US diplomacy actually hindered the peace process. I'd be interested in hearing how other administrations rejected such peace offerings while NK was making these kinds of concessions. As far as I know, NK has never considered peace unless the US agreed to remove its troops. But the current leader of NK also only obtained power in 2011. I am sure there will be endless speculation about what changed internally to cause them to drop that demand.
Obama had 5 years to make this happen! He failed and trump had to come in and make peace! *insert eye roll here*
|
It's reverse psychology!
They know Trump also wants to remove the troops from SK (or have SK pay for them, lulz). But then they also know that Trump always does the opposite of what the other one wants, because thats what he considers winning. So if they would continue to demand the troops to be gone, Trump would have to leave them there to WIN and be strong.
Now they drop that demand, so Trump can move them away and claim, that this is absolutely not weak and playing into NK's hand, because obviously NK doesn't care about that anymore.
|
Great job Trump! Getting results where the predecessors failed.
|
On April 28 2018 01:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 01:19 Tachion wrote:On April 28 2018 01:14 IyMoon wrote:On April 28 2018 00:56 a_flayer wrote:Trump is responsible for this because it was his isolationist views that caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. US diplomacy was the biggest obstacle to peace aside from the NK demand that the US leaves. There's not even a US ambassador to South Korea at the moment, which meant that Moon was free to pursue his own diplomacy. Meanwhile, the following quote (in particular the highlights as marked in bold) makes it clear that Trump's bellicose rhetoric on Twitter was intentional "bad cop" rhetoric and a way for Moon to play the "good cop" with Kim. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html"Clearly, credit goes to President Trump," Kang told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in Seoul. "He's been determined to come to grips with this from day one."
Kang told Amanpour that the détente was unexpected. "I think we're all surprised. Obviously pleasantly surprised. I think by all indications we are headed towards a very successful summit between my president and Chairman Kim tomorrow."
She said that Moon's determination also played a role in the thaw. In her analysis, the combination of tough rhetoric and economic and travel sanctions were instrumental.
Kang admitted Presidents Moon and Trump have at times had "different messaging," but insisted that they maintained close consultations. So yeah, this is basically all on Trump, whether you like it or not. Well, aside from the nuclear testing being effectively done, the mountain collapsing, and all that jazz. But that would have happened either way. Other US heads of state would have "made sure US interests are preserved", which effectively means stopping peace from developing. As we have seen in Syria. How do you reconcile caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. with So yeah, this is basically all on Trumpyou're going Trump totally just let others do the work so now we have to give him all the credit? What??? He's saying that US diplomacy actually hindered the peace process. I'd be interested in hearing how other administrations rejected such peace offerings while NK was making these kinds of concessions. As far as I know, NK has never considered peace unless the US agreed to remove its troops. But the current leader of NK also only obtained power in 2011. I am sure there will be endless speculation about what changed internally to cause them to drop that demand.
Yea that's the point. Something else is definitely going on besides US diplomacy. Trump threatens NK, NK threatens back and continues doing whatever the hell they want to do. Nothing changed on that front. Then all of a sudden NK makes concessions that have never been on the table before. Throwing Trump's name around doesn't make a whole lot of sense when there isn't enough information to connect the dots. Logically signs would point to Xi/Moon or something extreme happening within NK to account for their change in approach.
|
On April 28 2018 01:49 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 01:29 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2018 01:19 Tachion wrote:On April 28 2018 01:14 IyMoon wrote:On April 28 2018 00:56 a_flayer wrote:Trump is responsible for this because it was his isolationist views that caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. US diplomacy was the biggest obstacle to peace aside from the NK demand that the US leaves. There's not even a US ambassador to South Korea at the moment, which meant that Moon was free to pursue his own diplomacy. Meanwhile, the following quote (in particular the highlights as marked in bold) makes it clear that Trump's bellicose rhetoric on Twitter was intentional "bad cop" rhetoric and a way for Moon to play the "good cop" with Kim. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html"Clearly, credit goes to President Trump," Kang told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in Seoul. "He's been determined to come to grips with this from day one."
Kang told Amanpour that the détente was unexpected. "I think we're all surprised. Obviously pleasantly surprised. I think by all indications we are headed towards a very successful summit between my president and Chairman Kim tomorrow."
She said that Moon's determination also played a role in the thaw. In her analysis, the combination of tough rhetoric and economic and travel sanctions were instrumental.
Kang admitted Presidents Moon and Trump have at times had "different messaging," but insisted that they maintained close consultations. So yeah, this is basically all on Trump, whether you like it or not. Well, aside from the nuclear testing being effectively done, the mountain collapsing, and all that jazz. But that would have happened either way. Other US heads of state would have "made sure US interests are preserved", which effectively means stopping peace from developing. As we have seen in Syria. How do you reconcile caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. with So yeah, this is basically all on Trumpyou're going Trump totally just let others do the work so now we have to give him all the credit? What??? He's saying that US diplomacy actually hindered the peace process. I'd be interested in hearing how other administrations rejected such peace offerings while NK was making these kinds of concessions. As far as I know, NK has never considered peace unless the US agreed to remove its troops. But the current leader of NK also only obtained power in 2011. I am sure there will be endless speculation about what changed internally to cause them to drop that demand. Yea that's the point. Something else is definitely going on besides US diplomacy. Trump threatens NK, NK threatens back and continues doing whatever the hell they want to do. Nothing changed on that front. Then all of a sudden NK makes concessions that have never been on the table before. Throwing Trump's name around doesn't make a whole lot of sense when there isn't enough information to connect the dots. Logically signs would point to Xi/Moon or something extreme happening within NK to account for their change in approach.
I think people also might not remember that the last South Korean president was removed from office and charged with a bunch of crimes. I am sure that changed the internal political dynamics in SK in ways that foreigners would have trouble being aware of.
|
On April 28 2018 00:03 Womwomwom wrote:
Sanctions, North Korea having negotiating power via having actual nuke capacity, a left wing South Korean administrations after a whole decade of nationalist South Korean administrations, a South Korean president who campaigned on reunification as a campaign promise, an US administration unwilling/unable to interfere with their biliteral negotiations. Those are the main reasons why there's some degree of movement in these peace talks, which we barely even know about the details besides some nice gestures and the same proclamations as the last three times (1992, 2000, 2008?) this has happened.
As for praising Trump, just about every world leader has been doing it when they want to get something out of him. That's nothing new, Macron and Abe's sycophantic acts aren't new and they're pretty transparent about it too.
I think this whole statement is pretty accurate. While I think that Trump played a role in all this, I don't think he did the right moves on his part deliberately - as in, he knew what he was doing or had a clear strategy.
On April 28 2018 01:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2018 01:49 Tachion wrote:On April 28 2018 01:29 Plansix wrote:On April 28 2018 01:19 Tachion wrote:On April 28 2018 01:14 IyMoon wrote:On April 28 2018 00:56 a_flayer wrote:Trump is responsible for this because it was his isolationist views that caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. US diplomacy was the biggest obstacle to peace aside from the NK demand that the US leaves. There's not even a US ambassador to South Korea at the moment, which meant that Moon was free to pursue his own diplomacy. Meanwhile, the following quote (in particular the highlights as marked in bold) makes it clear that Trump's bellicose rhetoric on Twitter was intentional "bad cop" rhetoric and a way for Moon to play the "good cop" with Kim. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung-wha-amanpour-intl/index.html"Clearly, credit goes to President Trump," Kang told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in Seoul. "He's been determined to come to grips with this from day one."
Kang told Amanpour that the détente was unexpected. "I think we're all surprised. Obviously pleasantly surprised. I think by all indications we are headed towards a very successful summit between my president and Chairman Kim tomorrow."
She said that Moon's determination also played a role in the thaw. In her analysis, the combination of tough rhetoric and economic and travel sanctions were instrumental.
Kang admitted Presidents Moon and Trump have at times had "different messaging," but insisted that they maintained close consultations. So yeah, this is basically all on Trump, whether you like it or not. Well, aside from the nuclear testing being effectively done, the mountain collapsing, and all that jazz. But that would have happened either way. Other US heads of state would have "made sure US interests are preserved", which effectively means stopping peace from developing. As we have seen in Syria. How do you reconcile caused the US to withdraw diplomatically from the world. with So yeah, this is basically all on Trumpyou're going Trump totally just let others do the work so now we have to give him all the credit? What??? He's saying that US diplomacy actually hindered the peace process. I'd be interested in hearing how other administrations rejected such peace offerings while NK was making these kinds of concessions. As far as I know, NK has never considered peace unless the US agreed to remove its troops. But the current leader of NK also only obtained power in 2011. I am sure there will be endless speculation about what changed internally to cause them to drop that demand. Yea that's the point. Something else is definitely going on besides US diplomacy. Trump threatens NK, NK threatens back and continues doing whatever the hell they want to do. Nothing changed on that front. Then all of a sudden NK makes concessions that have never been on the table before. Throwing Trump's name around doesn't make a whole lot of sense when there isn't enough information to connect the dots. Logically signs would point to Xi/Moon or something extreme happening within NK to account for their change in approach. I think people also might not remember that the last South Korean president was removed from office and charged with a bunch of crimes. I am sure that changed the internal political dynamics in SK in ways that foreigners would have trouble being aware of.
The last president has recently been found guilty of corruption in most of the alleged charges. If I remember correctly she has to go to prison and pay some 17 mio $.
|
I'm pretty curious what are the concessions to which NK is claimed to have taken. If nuclear tests have stopped, it's because the test site that is the mountain had literally collapsed. There has been "peace" for the last 60 years, just that there was no peace treaty. The hyperbole some posters have written here doesn't seem to match up to the news as of yet. Both Koreas are talking, but they have been talking for a long time. Nothing has changed as far as I can tell. Positive first steps, but as yet just synbolic steps.
|
I feel like there has been an insane amount of talk about Trump with respect to NK peace. It feels like Moon probably played a much larger role. Moon ran on being very very peaceful with NK. Moon has put a lot of effort into that. Moon met with Kim. It feels like Moon and Kim should be the assumed bringers of peace, not Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
