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.
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.