My own background is Ireland, where the peace deal included an amnesty that has largely been respected. People from the same organisations that killed and tortured now walk the corridors of power joking with each other about who killed who's cousins; plenty of citizens aren't too happy about that, but twenty years of peace beats the alternatives.
Irish immigrant slums in New York and London were once so problematic that police wouldn't go there unless in numbers. There were criminal/terrorist gangs who enacted their own law. The filth was quite notable. In the history, you can find parallels to many of today's issues. Also relevant: In the early 1800's, the typical Irish peasant had only 1/2 to 1/4th the wealth of the contemporaneous US slave!
Like most politically charged post-regime-change trials, the T&RC in South Africa is widely regarded by knowledgeable parties as mostly a sham/show trial. You can read more about this in e.g. R.W. Johnson's books such as [0].
For context, Johnson is a Rhodes Scholar, self-avowed communist, and longtime ANC sympathizer (since long before '91), which IMHO lends his few critical-of-ANC opinions mainstream credibility.
If you disagree with him for some reason, it's easy to find other observers who fit your political taste to corroborate his claims.
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Long-Will-South-Africa-Survive-ebook/...
The South Koreans indeed mention that the US played a major role in having this happen.
It would be cosmically ironic if peace is achieved in this instance given the prev admin winning the peace Nobel while achieving no peace at all.
The North Korean government has a small but credible nuclear deterrent in the form of a warhead stockpile + ICBMs. That's only happened in the last year or two.
My take is Am pressure on China turned China against supporting NK antics, in combination with the new Am admin to willingness to engage (diplomatically and otherwise) resulted in NK feeling alone and unprotected and thus willing to cut a deal for peace. Time will tell.
So, the threat of millions of lives has existed since the detente. The main thing changing is the willingness of Am to apply true pressure and pass that pressure on to “friends” of NK as well as engage diplomatically. NK has not suffered from not having a credible MAD option.
But it’s not a done deal. It’ll take time.
It seems in these comments people are resistant to credit Ams because that would admit the current admin’s strategy is better than the prev admin’s failed strategy and people are loath to do that for political reasons.
"If you hit our leadership with a bunker buster we'll wipe out LA" is something new for them to be able to credibly claim, and likely makes them feel quite a bit more comfortable.
> It seems in these comments people are resistant to credit Ams because that would admit the current admin’s strategy is better than the prev admin’s failed strategy and people are loath to do that for political reasons.
It may be a better strategy, but I think we'll only know that years from now. Lots of potential potholes lie ahead.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung...
edit: Downvote all you like. If you don't think foreign leaders interacting with the US have a "praise Trump for something" note on their briefings these days, I dunno what to tell you. Especially when you're as closely allied with the US as SK is. Playing to his ego is going to be a common tactic for anyone who wants something from the US.
What I know is this, there is a huge team of American civilian and military that worked hard to tackle the DPRK problem and have achieved or at least partially achieved their objective. At the very top level these men and women are lead by one guy, Donald J Trump.
If the objective is a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula, I'm not so sure.
Here's why: https://twitter.com/QiZHAI/status/989795774975242241
I'll believe North Korea's promises when they're fulfilled. This isn't the first time relations have thawed or they've promised to get rid of their nuclear program, after all.
Seems to me that, if this normalization is for real, Kim Jong-un deserves the overwhelming amount of credit, despite obviously being the head of a horrific regime.
EDIT: Downvotes but no responses, lovely.
Generally I think people in the US just are oblivious to the shift in the power dynamic, and the position that Kim has successfully put himself in.
Sure, if you ignore the fact that South Korea had a massive political scandal resulting in impeachment of the President and switch in ruling party.
Every country has their scandals, but let's not pretend this one didn't change the political landscape a bit when the leadership swung from one party to another.
Somehow that isn't good enough to admit that maybe the country with the biggest military, the largest GDP, and a president who has at least claimed committment to helping find peace in Korea could have had something to do with finding peace in Korea.
What would it take? If Kim Jong Un himself writes a book titled "It was all Trump", then every person in South Korea, China, and Japan all write personal letters to Trump and the American people thanking them, are people still going to entertain these wild conspiracy theories that somehow everybody in the world is lying, and that they have some secret knowledge on this topic?
Thus, every statement by an official should be looked at with a critical eye, and we the public should be analyzing the pieces on the board and the incentives at play to try to deduce the truth for ourselves. Again, this is not rare or exceptional — it's the norm, especially on Hacker News. I'm not sure what you find so insane about this.
What's insane is just believing everything at face value with no understanding of the reasoning behind it. If Yahoo announced a partnership with Facebook and talked about how great a guy Zuckerberg was, would you expect everyone on HN to roll over and say, "It must be true"? Doubtful.
"Trump helped," is not a convincing statement alone. It doesn't imply anything more than, "Trump told us to say he helped." Rather, pointing to specific differences, concessions, deals, etc. that Trump made vs his predecessors would be convincing.
Straw man - the above was just objecting to this characterisation of recent SK political changes as insignificant
This is what I'm replying to.
I think we've all been in a scenario where a manager or group project member gets praised for all their hard work, when everyone in the room knows they didn't do very much.
It's entirely possible this is what South Korea is doing here. Trump's well known to be easy to negotiate with if his ego is stroked, and quick to anger if it isn't. SK risks nothing by praising him, even if it's not fully warranted... and diplomats are pretty used to mouthing bullshit.
The South Korean attribution of credit to the US should really be seen as part of the larger goal of detente, and not an independent analysis...
http://sports.coral.co.uk/politics/international/internation...
http://news.ladbrokes.com/politics/donald-trump-at-21-to-win...
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-27/a-nobel-p...
Consider for a second that Reagan wasn't given the Nobel Peace Prize (Gorbachev was) for the peaceful end of the Cold War. I find the "Reagan Victory School" argument far more compelling than any argument for Trump in this case.
It will be interesting to see what the Nobel Committee decides.
As is probably the only pragmatic way a deal was ever going to get done. And realistically, NK is so impoverished that a big win for him, particularly image wise, is a very small price for the rest of us to pay. I'd like to see some strategic global praise (and from Trump) lavished on Kim Jong Un, highlighting the "difficult position due to no one in particular's fault" he inherited so the NK population who do have an outside window to the world can start grass roots rumors that this is the right direction for the country.
The NK leadership could be envisioning a state like Russia with a market economy and many theoretical freedoms, but practically controlled by a mob-like oligarchy that entwines personal and military interests.
Don't forget industrial. Pretty much the slowly improving state of humanity since the mid 1800's. The US powers that be had a stranglehold on the media since the 1980's. It's just that the disruption in the media industry has finally started showing the cracks.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/asia/north-korea-nuclear-test...
They may have suddenly lost the ability to use their regular test site due to collapse.
Regardless of motivations, if this is a sincere move towards peace then it is a good thing for the world.
If Kim Jong-Un can pull things off right, he and his familiy will be able to live out their lives without having to fear being deposed and murdered, probably keeping enough wealth to live in luxury for generations, and maybe going down in history as a well-regarded peacemaking hero on top of it all.
Good to be able to contribute something substantive to an HN discussion :)
I think this is it. After all this time, they were never going to surrender; it has to be something that can be pitched as a voluntary agreement between equals that doesn't compromise NK sovereignty.
It can only be "the end of the beginning". The war isn't even formally over yet. I wouldn't expect elections in Kim's lifetime, but perhaps he can become merely an ordinary dictator like Turkmenistan.
This is true in most negotiations, but something we tend to forget. Forced acceptance of an ultimatum when one party is at a significant disadvantage is the perfect environment to breed subversion and partisan resistance. The stakes may differ, but it fits human nature whether in matters of global politics or at a personal level, for instance, negotiating the scope of the next software release.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory
Not saying this is going on necessary, but from the game theoretic point of view it makes sense.
It seems that no amount of evidence is enough for some people.
"South Korea’s Foreign Minister tells me in Seoul that “clearly credit goes to President Trump” for bringing North Korea to the negotiating table."
https://twitter.com/camanpour/status/989423486438379520
---
Some more evidence, this time of fear and projection: "Why Kanye West's Pro-Trump Tweets Are a Real Threat"
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/why-kanye-wests-pro-...
FWIW, this definitely caused me to up my estimation of him. It went from "absolutely dismal," to "very bad." I'll also note that it's just a bit too early to tell whether this will ultimately result in a good outcome. Shaking hands is a big step. But actions talk louder than photo ops.
Electing our first black president after the great financial crisis?
Bailing Europe out of WW2 after the depression?
Well even CNN gave him credit for getting the two Koreas to talk and possibly end the 70 year old war:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung...
"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."
So in this case political "weakness" does seem to play well for the world?
Many Nazis not only walked away scot-free but even held positions of power after WW2. See Hans Globke, who had part in the Nuremberg Race Laws back when he worked as Ministerialdirigent in the Office for Jewish Affairs in the Ministry of Interior. And after WW2? Secretary of State and Chief of Staff of the German Chancellery in West Germany from 28 October 1953 to 15 October 1963. That kind of career was not a rarity.
So it stands to reason that its internal political climate finally worked its way around to peace and trade.
And the geopolitical utility of buffer states has been steadily eroding over the last few decades.
Kim probably felt that his rule was coming to an end if he didn't cave in.
Four things in my opinion.
1) China summoned North Korea to meet after their nuclear test site collapsed. That much is known factually. China had drawn a public redline, about the risk of their nuclear program harming Chinese people, from fallout reaching across the border. The collapsed mountain is speculated to be at high risk for leaking fallout and that it may have left a chimney. China publicly warned North Korea on this prior to the mountain collapse. It's very likely that when China summoned North Korea afterward, they were given an intimidating ultimatum.
2) There's nowhere left for North Korea to go. Kim got his nukes, a lot of them apparently. Now what? Nukes don't do anything for developing your country. They won't convince the world to get rid of the sanctions, they won't force the US to give you a lot of trade or money.
3) North Korea must see that the US is able to massively trade with other formerly hostile Communist nations in Asia, such as Vietnam and China. The US fought a horrific war with Vietnam, not dissimilar to that of North Korea. Now the US and Vietnam are large trading partners, and the US just floated an aircraft carrier next to its shores on a military buddy-buddy mission. It's impossible that Kim could see that all occurring and not understand there can be a different future.
4) North Korea can't compete in any regard militarily outside of nuclear weapons. They're 40-60 years behind the US and South Korea. That's because they're so extraordinarily poor. They do not have the resources to wage a competitive traditional war with advanced nations. You know what's great for fixing that? A dramatically bigger economy. They have a ~$25 billion economy today. You know what would be a better security context if you're them? Having a $250 billion economy, lots of money to modernize the military, lots of money for military R&D, lots of money for cultivating education domestically, and still having the same nuclear know-how to re-arm with nukes if necessary. It's the ideal outcome if you're Kim Jong Un - you plausibly remain the dictator for life as in China with Mao or Xi, and you dramatically bolster your economy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sa...
I think Xi Jinping is quietly going to allow Trump to take the public credit. And meanwhile Xi is going to build a new bridge into Korea based around Capitalism with Chinese characteristics.
I think we'll need to look back and reflect in 10 years to see if Korea has moved closer to USA or closer to China before the real credit can be given.
When people look back in 10 years I suspect that this will be the main story, and the China angle taking a large backseat position. When people make bold predictions and the opposite happens then that make for a better story than details of geopolitical results.
This does put egg smack on the face of a lot of people though so I fully expect Trump’s role to be downplayed as much as possible. I’m already hearing and reading Trump had little/nothing to do with it but that’s ok, peace is more important than credit, and the American people can judge for themselves what happened.
...Except for his continuing antagonism of Russia (A nuclear power that, unlike North Korea, is capable of a global nuclear war) in Syria.
Which, I suppose, nobody expected, but for a different reason.
Unless, US withdraw their military presence. And US wont let that happen.
It's now in the hands of NK dictator to maneuverer between the two most powerful nations on this planet. (The SK president is not too much better than US puppet, and probably wont have much wiggle room).
As much as I desire democracy and power to everyone, these kind of powerful people conflict is so tense and entertaining.
The end of war, os innevitable, this year, or years to come, and he knows he can win this war. But at least he can go down with more in his pockets.
I think North Korea must be quite weak too. They don’t appear stronger to me but I’m no expert on the matter. I wonder how much longer that regime can maintain power. It’s lasted a lot longer than I thought it would be able to so there must be a high level of resiliency in terms of preventing rebellion and regime collapse.
There have been benefits due to his presidency.
Positives of Trump:
Apparent North Korean desire to make peace. Nato countries starting to realize that they can't forever rely on America to disproportionately defend them. Same for Japan. This may lead to the U.S. being able/willing to cut back on defense spending at some time in the future. Trump's rhetoric on trade deals seem like they may end up generating results in the form of cracking down on abuses of the system. Other countries are realizing the U.S. is not as stable as it once seemed and the over reliance on the Pax Americana may come to an end. I think this is a good thing.
By proposing major cuts to non-defense related federal programs there's a possibility that power will shift back toward states. Northern and west coast states largely prop up the southern states and Republican leaning states. There's going to be a shift in outlook on the issue of states rights if Mississippi, for instance, realizes that they may not be able to rely on federal funds to prop it up. In the coming years we'll see more left leaning people start using "states rights" as justification for policies and right leaning people will start shifting toward more federal power. The wealthy states ought to be advocating for decentralization of federal power since too much of their money goes toward the backwards states. I think that is a good thing.
This has everything to do with NK and regional politics. I wouldn't be surprised if this has more to do with China seeing an opportunity to force the US off the Korean peninsula under the guise of a peace treaty and they are using NK to achieve this aim.
Why so strong a doubt though? South Korea's officials say "Clearly, credit goes to President Trump". One would think SK foreign minister would have some insight into the process...
> And Trump has not done anything significant - he's just full of bluster and hot air which anyone outside of the US (and most of the US too) know.
It is interesting that just a few months ago everyone was sure he was going to start a war in the Korean peninsula and it wasn't just hot air.
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/wjppgm/trump-north-korea...
http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-north-korea-ready-for-war...
As soon as they started talking about peace, it is back to being hot air again and have nothing to do with it?
We could at least say perhaps it had a bad influence and we would have seen peace sooner, but it's really hard to say "he had no influence" at this point.
I'm sure he does - and he's not going to say what he really thinks in public. How do you think politics actually works? SK relies on the US for security, they aren't going to be stupid enough to insult the US publicly by saying that they aren't needed (especially when the President is someone who has clearly demonstrated he needs his ego stroked).
There is also the asian cultural norms around 'saving face' which affects how and what they say. You avoid insulting those you want as an ally, and if buttering up someone is going to get a good reaction, might as well do that if it doesn't cost you anything.
> It is interesting that just a few months ago everyone was sure he was going to start a war in the Korean peninsula and it wasn't just hot air.
That's what the media reports looking to sensationalise everything. Just about everything between the NK and the US over the past few decades has been bluster and hot air - this isn't the first time NK has promised to denuclearise or have a peace treaty - the reality is that NK as just been getting on with whatever program they wanted to do regardless of what they or the US says publicly. Kim is still in power, and they have nukes.
She does. Sorry I did forget to include the original link https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung... it is Amanpour interviewing South Korean Foreign Minister, Kang Kyung-wha.
> they aren't going to be stupid enough to insult the US publicly by saying that they aren't needed (especially when the President is someone who has clearly demonstrated he needs his ego stroked).
There is something else in between singing praises and insults. Could have just been a generic praise for all parties. The interviewer didn't asks "who credit goes to". Could have praised her own boss for a change "look what we've done".
> the reality is that NK as just been getting on with whatever program they wanted to do regardless of what they or the US says publicly. Kim is still in power, and they have nukes.
Exactly and this is the first time they met. She (the foreign minister) said "I feel like someone stepped on the accelerator" since the beginning of the year. And well, Trump has certainly been preoccupied with NK for a while. Again, I can at least see saying "well he made it worse" by his actions and comments but I don't see saying he has nothing to do with it.
Just because Trump has talked about NK doesn't necessarily equate to him being the cause of actions that a country takes. Look at the history of NK/US relations ... there are decades of threats and sanctions against NK, none of them have had any real effect. Every now and then, NK makes overtures about denuclearisation and/or peace treaty, but eventually reverses course. In every case, they have done it on their schedule and on their terms.
So Trumps threats are really just another in a long string of US theats against NK. And Trump has less credibility than other presidents given he is well known to lie and bluster. So there is no evidence that NK would feel more threatened by Trump than previous Presidents.
What is different is China. China is in ascendency, particularly in the Pacific where it is blatantly trying to exert its influence everywhere in the Pacific. And NK can't survive without China's support and trade. So one scenario is China hoping to evict the US from the Korean Peninsular (as one of the conditions of NK/SK peace treaty/nuclear disarmament). NK is the puppet to make this happen.
That is far more likely the cause of NK actions than Trump. China is what makes today's scenario different from the previous similar situations.
My main point is that I see nothing different from the US side than what has happened in the past. So hence my statement that I doubt that Trump/US played much of a part in NK actions today. What the underlying driver is I can't be certain, although China is my bet.
Except that unlike other presidents, he is also crazy. He ran for President because Obama made fun of him. A crazy bully is a lot more dangerous than a smart bully. A smart bully will be afraid of consequences, a crazy one behaves erratically. In a way the crazy image is, I day say, benefiting in this case. Can you imagine Obama both calling NK leader short and fat, then swearing to nuke him? I don't. That's pretty different I'd say.
> So one scenario is China hoping to evict the US from the Korean Peninsular (as one of the conditions of NK/SK peace treaty/nuclear disarmament).
If this was all done by China, why would SK agree to that? Have they been duped and being taken advantage of? So far from what I've read US troops leaving is not a precondition of a declaration of peace and further strengthening of ties.
From China's side, would this peace process move NK closer to SK. Perhaps more cooperation. Economic ties even? Why would they lose their puppet state and buffer zone between themselves and US ally.
> My main point is that I see nothing different from the US side than what has happened in the past.
Well what did Pompeo talk about with Kim? I don't know, it was "secret" meeting. But pretty sure it wasn't about nothing.
And I'll still go with the Foreign Minister said. You might say your analysis shows nothing happened, but she is making pretty strong claims. I am inclined to believe her words. I guess we'll have to wait and see as more details come out.
With its nukes, NK can fight back - if not against the US, against SK. I agree that as a crazy President, Trump can destabilise a lot of the world, but I don't believe even he would start a nuclear war.
> If this was all done by China, why would SK agree to that?
Because it would mean peace for them - it's either accept olive branches when they are offered or remain permanently at war. In a way, they are clutching at straws - but I can't say I blame them.
> Well what did Pompeo talk about with Kim? I don't know, it was "secret" meeting. But pretty sure it wasn't about nothing.
There have been plenty of talks - open and secret - between the US and NK in the past. Nothing new here.
WaPo had a good commentary on the history of failed peace talks: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/opinion/north-korea-south...
- 1992: the Agreement on Reconciliation, Nonaggression and Exchanges and Cooperation between the South and the North and the Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
- 2000: the South-North Joint Declaration
- 2007: South-North Joint declaration
All of those were about peace treaties and non-aggression. None of them went anywhere.
Trump is such a polarizing figure I'm not surprised people are reaching to discredit him. He's a wacko president but he's not wrong all the time.
This has always been the end-game for rogue states, and means Kim Jong-Un is basically home free. If we wanted to get rid of him we missed that opportunity when we let them get nukes.
Second, South Korea elected a liberal president as a reaction to the previous conservative president who was involved in a giant scandal. He had a strong mandate to negotiate.
Trump played a part as well, but it’s not immediately clear how much of an effect his policies had. On the other hand the first two things I mentioned are unambiguously big.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sa...
China. Follow the money. China cannot have a nuclear conflict breakout. China is making a killing* exporting. China also knows Kim and Trump are totally insane and something could go terribly wrong. I would guess during this train ride Xi Jinping put down the hammer.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/With-secret-armored-tr...
President Trump evidently knew this and threatened to do this. It helps that China is so dependent on trade with the US, which means that DJT could threaten China's pocket book as well (which he did). China cooperated with the US, and Kim folded.
It's that simple.
Sure, Kim was in a strong position but for this.
Starving NK can definitely be arranged. First you make sure they cannot trade, then you wait for things to get bad. The NK economy will not thrive and almost certainly will go south. As to how much starvation is needed for regime change, I don't know, but unlike Clinton and Bush, Trump can be believed that he'll not buckle, and that he'll provide no food aid.
I'm kinda trolling but not really.
It occurred to me a week or two ago that he, of all people, might actually be able to switch US to the Metric System and make it stick.
I think the difference between Trump and most other politicians is not the level of BS, but that he's always winking. I've often heard that his supporters don't take him literally, but take him seriously, and his haters take him literally, but not seriously. I think there's a lot of truth to that, and despite the carpet bombing of propaganda and hatred from the MSM won't be able to cover up forever that he's accomplished some good things.
ISIS would beg to differ.
People here say their nuclear program is a failutre, but they already tested the H-bomb as working, and it does look like it can fit in a warhead: http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.newsweek.com/files/styles/lg...
They probably feel they're in a strong enough negotiating position now to resume six-party talks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-party_talks
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?