First of all, in the best of all possible worlds, this is great news. A possible road to the nuclear disarmament of North Korea! Because nuclear weapons are involved, this would be bigger than the Carter's Camp David Accords, and easily the greatest act of diplomacy of the 21st Century.
All that has to happen is a meeting of the minds between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un. So what in hell would that entail? The most hopeful school of thought is that because these men are, uh, iconoclastic, that makes a meeting of the minds possible. But it is a high stakes gamble:
New York Times wrote:It’s practically an axiom of international diplomacy that you only bring heads of state together at the very end of talks, after lower-level officials have done the dirty work.
Negotiators need to be free to back down from demands. Or to contradict themselves. Or to play good cop, bad cop. Or to walk away. Lower-level officials can lose face or sacrifice credibility for the sake of talks. Heads of state are much too constrained.
Robert E. Kelly, a professor at South Korea’s Pusan National University, wrote on Twitter that, in a more typical process, “there would be a series of concessions and counter-concessions building trust and credibility over time (likely years) eventually rising to a serious discussion of denuclearization.”
Instead, the Trump administration is jumping straight to the last step.
There is little obvious gain in skipping over a process that is intended to lock North Korea into public commitments, test what is achievable and ensure maximum American leverage and flexibility.
There is potentially significant downside, though. Victor Cha, a well-respected North Korea expert, warns in a New York Times Op-Ed essay, “Failed negotiations at the summit level leave all parties with no other recourse for diplomacy.”
So I guess I see these talks as high risk/high reward. Look at the leaders involved. Are these men you trust in high risk negotiations? What happens if the negotiations are NOT successful? Kim Jong Un has gotten a face-to-face with the President of the United States, something his grandfather and father could not do. If he comes away from that meeting without making concessions, he will have publicly said 'no' to the President of the United States and walked away. For Donald Trump to win, he has to have Kim Jong Un disarm.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
First of all, in the best of all possible worlds, this is great news. A possible road to the nuclear disarmament of North Korea! Because nuclear weapons are involved, this would be bigger than the Carter's Camp David Accords, and easily the greatest act of diplomacy of the 21st Century.
All that has to happen is a meeting of the minds between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un. So what in hell would that entail? The most hopeful school of thought is that because these men are, uh, iconoclastic, that makes a meeting of the minds possible. But it is a high stakes gamble:
New York Times wrote:It’s practically an axiom of international diplomacy that you only bring heads of state together at the very end of talks, after lower-level officials have done the dirty work.
Negotiators need to be free to back down from demands. Or to contradict themselves. Or to play good cop, bad cop. Or to walk away. Lower-level officials can lose face or sacrifice credibility for the sake of talks. Heads of state are much too constrained.
Robert E. Kelly, a professor at South Korea’s Pusan National University, wrote on Twitter that, in a more typical process, “there would be a series of concessions and counter-concessions building trust and credibility over time (likely years) eventually rising to a serious discussion of denuclearization.”
Instead, the Trump administration is jumping straight to the last step.
There is little obvious gain in skipping over a process that is intended to lock North Korea into public commitments, test what is achievable and ensure maximum American leverage and flexibility.
There is potentially significant downside, though. Victor Cha, a well-respected North Korea expert, warns in a New York Times Op-Ed essay, “Failed negotiations at the summit level leave all parties with no other recourse for diplomacy.”
So I guess I see these talks as high risk/high reward. Look at the leaders involved. Are these men you trust in high risk negotiations? What happens if the negotiations are NOT successful? Kim Jong Un has gotten a face-to-face with the President of the United States, something his grandfather and father could not do. If he comes away from that meeting without making concessions, he will have publicly said 'no' to the President of the United States and walked away. For Donald Trump to win, he has to have Kim Jong Un disarm.
This is interesting. Do you believe this is a good idea for Trump to talk with Kim, or not. In other words, if he succeeds, and this leads to successful negotiations, and NK actually disarms...or even leads to a NK/SK unification of sorts, is it worth the gamble?
If he does succeed...would you support a Noble Peace Prize for Trump? If he fails, would you further pile on.
My main question is this, does he have your (Trump haters) support to move forward with meeting with Kim?
Can those that loath Trump, move past their bias and support "the move" that might lead to negotiations that could disarm NK? Is there room in folks hearts to say "nice try" if Kim is just using this moment to grandstand?
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Well. Whatever has happened up until now has only slowed the NK's process to develop their nuclear program and ICBMs. This is reality tv where the stakes are war. Good stuff. Great stuff. The best stuff, really.
I do tend to believe that Kim basically has already won this game of 4d Trump chess. If he tells the President no he just stood up to the most powerful man in the world, his regime is legitimized in the North Korean people's minds, and he retains power. The only way this can really backfire is if sanctions are hurting him to the point the country implodes in civil war.
- Doc
Last edited by Guest on Sat Mar 10, 2018 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Word is his staff is walking back the abrupt announcement to the traditional US position requiring North Korea to demonstrate good will through actions before we accept an offer to meet. https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/09/politics ... index.html
Kinda sounds like Trump jumped at an offer he didn't realize is always on the table to meet with Kim Jong Un. Having the best people doesn't help much if you don't consult with them, President Trump.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
The North Koreans played Trump like a cheap fiddle. It’s clear he was ignorant of the fact that this invitation has been on the table for decades and that we had a policy of requiring certain preconditions before any such meeting. He reacted as if this was an extra special invitation extended to him because he is THE DONALD, the bestest deal maker ever. Now, his spokespeople are busy walking back his unconditional acceptance of the meeting — back to the preconditions that his predecessors placed on it. Now, NK can claim the US is an untrustworthy negotiating partner because Trump reneged on his acceptance. And all because we have a president who won’t read, won’t listen, and won’t learn.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
The gingham dog and the calico cat Side by side on the table sat; 'T was half-past twelve, and (what do you think!) Nor one nor t' other had slept a wink! The old Dutch clock and the Chinese plate Appeared to know as sure as fate There was going to be a terrible spat. (I was n't there; I simply state What was told to me by the Chinese plate!)
The gingham dog went "Bow-wow-wow!" And the calico cat replied "Mee-ow!" The air was littered, an hour or so, With bits of gingham and calico, While the old Dutch clock in the chimney-place Up with its hands before its face, For it always dreaded a family row! (Now mind: I'm only telling you What the old Dutch clock declares is true!)
The Chinese plate looked very blue, And wailed, "Oh, dear! what shall we do!" But the gingham dog and the calico cat Wallowed this way and tumbled that, Employing every tooth and claw In the awfullest way you ever saw— And, oh! how the gingham and calico flew! (Don't fancy I exaggerate— I got my news from the Chinese plate!)
Next morning, where the two had sat They found no trace of dog or cat; And some folks think unto this day That burglars stole that pair away! But the truth about the cat and pup Is this: they ate each other up! Now what do you really think of that! (The old Dutch clock it told me so, And that is how I came to know.)
The Duel — Eugene Field
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Markk wrote:This is interesting. Do you believe this is a good idea for Trump to talk with Kim, or not. In other words, if he succeeds, and this leads to successful negotiations, and NK actually disarms...or even leads to a NK/SK unification of sorts, is it worth the gamble?
If he does succeed...would you support a Noble Peace Prize for Trump? If he fails, would you further pile on.
My main question is this, does he have your (Trump haters) support to move forward with meeting with Kim?
Can those that loath Trump, move past their bias and support "the move" that might lead to negotiations that could disarm NK? Is there room in folks hearts to say "nice try" if Kim is just using this moment to grandstand?
Whether or not I dislike Trump, anything that would 'de-nuke' the Korean peninsula would deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. A state of war technically exists between North Korea and South Korea. All they have is an armistice.
Now whether or not a man who uses terms like shat-hole countries and calls Kim 'little rocket man' has the diplomatic chops to pull of these negotiations remains to be seen. And while I would love to see the talks succeed, but I doubt if they will. I feel head-to-head negotiations are premature. I think there is a small chance they will succeed and if they do not I think relations between the two countries will almost certainly worsen.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
If Trump pulls off a long-term UN inspection and verification regimine of NK nuclear facilities that neuters their nuclear program he would absolutely deserve the Nobel Peace prize. At least he would get it for doing something rather than just existing *cough* Obama *cough*.
Let's see how it goes!
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.