Hacker News Reader

Comment by spodek | Hacker News Reader

What changed that North Korea would be serious this time? I can't think of much. On the contrary, they seem stronger. Maybe they feel they have enough to negotiate more favorable terms than ever before. Maybe the borders have become so porous to outside information coming in that they feel change is inevitable so they'd do better to be in front of it.

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?

View on HN

> 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?

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.

There was blood on everybody's hands in Ireland though. Hard to make the same case for N. Korea.

Don't forget about the sanctions.

Everyone? I’m pretty sure most people (from both ethnic groups or religions or whatever you want to call them) were civilians...

Everyone who participated in the conflict, yes. The IRA and UDA/UFF were both unquestionably guilty of committing atrocities during the Troubles. The North Korean situation is much different -- one-sided persecution of the masses by the ruling class. The GDR would perhaps be a better analogy. It's hard to envision an end to this situation that does not involve Kim Jong Un and thousands of others on the gallows, which is why I absolutely do not believe in the sincerity of these overtures.

Good Point!

LOL WUT? The USA literally ran out of bombing targets because they flattened North Korea during the war.

There's a point here, but please don't make it this way, i.e. in the internet trolling style. It guarantees worse discussion.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

It has been compared with South Africa, which actually had a "Truth and reconciliation" commission to find out what happened. The approach in Ireland was to simply draw a line under everything instead. Which means that the dismantling of the institutions of injustice that produced the conflict only went so far - reform of RUC into PSNI, but no further into Special Branch or the other security services.

Assuming I understood you correctly, I'd prefer if the "draw a line under everything" approach happened in Poland, wrt. who did or didn't support the socialists during 60s - 80s. It's not even about violence and death, just plain old politics. In the political sphere, for the last 2+ decades everyone has been combing over the archives to find some dirt on everyone else. And the media spammed us with that as well. I wish they'd just forget about that and get on with building the future of the country.

I'm not disputing your main point, but I do have a relevant sidenote:

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/...

Ireland also provides a counterpoint if you look a little further back in history. The Irish civil war didn’t end particularly cleanly and had very long lasting repercussions in modern Irish politics

The Irish diaspora and its effects are also a valuable though horribly neglected bit of history, which has a direct bearing on the immigration and civil rights crises of today.

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!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHr9GRgRw_M

The only significant thing to change was American policy. The admin put great on China to end smuggling goods across the border and ending the hijinks in the high seas, basically putting an end to doing an end around sanctions as well as the bluster.

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 only significant thing to change was American policy.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Park_Geun-hye

SK has ongoing scandals, every admin. Their foreign minister, I imagine, knows SK politics, they are crediting the American administration for having this happen.

The foreign minister is likely smart enough to fluff up the leader of their most critical ally, regardless of how much they feel he contributed internally, and especially when you know that specific foreign leader responds really well to praise.

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.

This mindset is so insane to me. You've got one of the biggest foreign policy wins in a long time staring you in the face, and you've got the Korean President, the Japanese President, and the Korean foreign minister all agreeing that the Us Government had a strong hand in making all of this happen.

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?

>The only significant thing to change was American policy

Straw man - the above was just objecting to this characterisation of recent SK political changes as insignificant

>The foreign minister is likely smart enough to fluff up the leader of their most critical ally, regardless of how much they feel he contributed internally, and especially when you know that specific foreign leader responds really well to praise.

This is what I'm replying to.

Can you clarify what you object to in that statement?

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.

Governments, politicians, business leaders, etc. regularly say things out loud to generate a desired perception among the public, when the real underlying reasons are actually different. This is not rare or exceptional — it's the norm. It's called PR. Every public statement is crafted this way.

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.

The scandal led to the election of a different party in South Korea, replacing the conservative militant party with one that's more conciliatory to North Korea. So yes the recent Presidential scandal definitely had an effect.

Trump & Kim Jung Un have the highest odds (2/1) of winning the next Nobel peace prize according to bookies:

http://sports.coral.co.uk/politics/international/internation...

I never really know how to read these betting sites, but what I see there is 4/1 for Kim Jong-Un and Moon Jae-In.

It wasn't like that two hours ago, they probably updated it due to the news.

http://news.ladbrokes.com/politics/donald-trump-at-21-to-win...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-27/a-nobel-p...

There is no way the Nobel prize people are going to hand a Nobel prize to Trump and Kim Jung Un. Trump is embarrassment to the world and Kim Jung Un literally has killed 10's of thousands of people to stay in power.

better to give the prize to someone like obama, who accomplished nothing at all to deserve it, but gave people the warm fuzzies for not being george bush

False dichotomy. It's a fair to say that Obama did nothing to deserve a peace award, but obviously Trump and Kim don't deserve one either.

This is such an interesting problem. I don't see any of these people being suitable candidates, but if this detente is fully realized then you can't ignore it.

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.

Obviously there are many factors that brought this about, but even South Korea's foreign minister specifically said Trump gets the credit for this:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/world/korea-summit-kang-kyung...

That foreign leaders have figured out praising Trump for things is a useful tactic isn't shocking.

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.

Do you think it is possible for Trump to achieve anything, or is literally everything he comes near doomed to failure? Serious question, since it isn't clear from what you've written.

Trump has already achieved plenty domestically (tax bill, successful supreme court appointment, disrupting regulation efforts at the EPA and FCC etc) but I can't say I see much evidence that this development can be attributed to Trump. Of course, nothing happens on the geopolitical stage without some influence from the U.S, but the evidence I do see suggests that this is mostly a combination of factors having to do with South Korean leadership and other recent positive developments between SK and NK during the Olympics. If it comes out that Trump had a specific role in these negotiations then I think he deserves recognition for that, but as of now I haven't seen any indication of that.

Trying to be as objective as I can be, it's just hard to see a path (let alone follow it, and think it's reasonable) from Trump to this apparent detente. To be honest the things that Trump did cited in that CNN article are laughable...

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.

I agree, Kim is the puppet master here. Everyone else is just an actor. My opinion is he wants to start mining and selling its huge amount of rare earth minerals with the sanctions lifted. I'm not sure at all he's really interested in reunification. Something like the current Chinese model would fit perfectly his ambitions. And keep him in power for long time.

Reunification certainly seems farfetched.

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.

I absolutely believe it's possible for Trump to achieve things. (Good, and bad.)

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.

Your words that foreign leaders are being dishonest - is that speculation, or a statement of fact? It's not entirely clear from your words, but the context suggests you believe it is a statement of fact. I would think would be considered proper to make it clear.

We do know some one in US put a lot of effort, esp. was behind sending three aircraft carriers into the region. Has done enough posturing but had incredibly held back so the situation does not escalate and talked with Chinese to impose and/or stick with sanctions. I do not know who it was, its most likely a huge team of people. All this happened after the State department was purged of his high level officials.

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 "have a flashy headline", yes.

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

>The only significant thing to change was American policy.

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.

But they’ve had warheads and “scuds” (with conv explosives) for decades. Their man bargaining chips were SK and JP populations.

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.

North Korea's first nuclear test was only a little over ten years ago, and it's likely to only be in the last couple of years they've neared any sort of miniaturization sufficient to fit one onto a missile.

Fair enough. Yet they’ve had Katyusha style launchers pointing at Seoul for decades capable of destroying it (also assuring they get destroyed in retaliation by Am troops).

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.

I don't think the NK desire for nuclear deterrence has ever been about deterring SK - as you note, they've already got plenty of conventional deterrence there - but SK's US allies.

"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.

Hey have a hell of a lot of artillery pointing south too.

Nope. What changed was Kim got his credible deterrence and the much more pragmatic Moon replaced Park. Trump helped in that he got out of the way and may have offered significant concessions under the table; with that opening everybody including China jumped on it. Sanctions are for public consumption. The realty is it's anybody's guess how this ends, but if it goes the way it appears then Kim has won strategically.

> but if it goes the way it appears then Kim has won strategically

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 election of a new dovish South Korean president a year ago would seem to be even more significant than any change in US policy.

The only significant thing to change was Chinese enforcement of US-led UN sanctions (which the US has been introducing before the UNSC for years)... And is more likely due to North Korea's overt militancy in the past year.

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...

Nazis were a special case. Most of the time those who served a tyrannical government get to go on with their lives and adapt to the circumstances. For example, Russia’s current ersatz Tsar is a former Soviet KGB agent.

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.

Yep, even in WW2. Japanese committed equally gross atrocities. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 The Americans granted them immunity.

Unit 731 were granted immunity because the Americans wanted access to the research which was apparently rigorous and useful. There were Nazi scientists who got similar treatment (Operation Paperclip). A better comparison would be with the Japanese and German political leadership. Japanese leaders such a Tojo and others were executed for war crimes.

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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

My guess is that their nuclear program is a failure. While this collapse may not be the absolute cause, I'm assuming they've had much bigger related issues, and are no longer able to sustain their threats. Combine that with the number of sanctions on them, they really have no choice.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/26/asia/north-korea-nuclear-test...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/26/north-korea-nu...

They may have suddenly lost the ability to use their regular test site due to collapse.

I keep seeing that people think a test site collapse caused this, but if that was the case it isn't like they were going to suddenly be invaded. I think if anything, something internally was to cause this negotiation of peace.

I think Kim is paranoid and scared. Maybe someone convinced him that he's the next Saddam, so he's getting ahead of it to avoid the same fate?

It's impossible to know for certain, but perhaps having invested so much in nuclear weapons and finding that it only made the US more belligerent, they realized that they had to shift their strategy? Or maybe they've been waiting for the opportune moment to extend the olive branch? Become a nuclear power so that they could negotiate from a position of power and get better terms?

It's not that complicated. To get the best concessions you come with biggest chips of your own to trade. Even if NK's intention was to negotiate from day one, they would have gone for nuclear weapons first, given that prior negotiations did not net them satisfactory concessions. What's changed is that they believe they have big enough chips now and Trump is high-variance enough that the gamble is worth it.

Maybe he's just human and rationally wants himself and his family to get out alive? Anyone with a brain and a little knowledge of history can see how easily things can go badly for a dictator and his family.

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.

The Chinese may have pressured North Korea to halt testing because of the potential leaks. North Korea can tunnel under another mountain but the risks will be the same. North Korea is dependent on China for trade. Cut that off and North Korea eventually collapses.

Regardless of motivations, if this is a sincere move towards peace then it is a good thing for the world.

So... like Star Trek 6, except where Sulu isn’t right there to notice the sudden loss of the enemy homeworld?

Praxis wasn't the homeworld. It housed their key energy generating facility.

Good to be able to contribute something substantive to an HN discussion :)

That actually makes it more analogous, since this mountain base was a key component of their ability to make war.

They have lost their test site because they demonstrated thermonuclear capabilities. NK is a nice position with their nuclear program, because they demonstrated last year that they have the ability to set of a thermonuclear explosion and the ability the launch intercontinental missiles. From the point of view of nuclear strategy that is a win, because even if they have problems with reliability, nobody is gambling a major city on a 1 in 10-ish chance that the weapons work.

> On the contrary, they seem stronger.

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.

> [...]something that can be pitched as a voluntary agreement between equals[...]

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.

A possibly highly irrational US president in a world where other US ground conflicts are winding down? I wonder this too. I expect we won't really know until we have a decade or two of hindsight to try to understand.

Is it possible he's not highly irrational at all and you're projecting your own fears onto him?

It is possible, but extremely unlikely given the evidence.

They said the same thing about Reagan, and he brought down the Soviets in a similar way.

It seems that no amount of evidence is enough for some people.

Reagan didn't: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/le... The SU was brought down by Gorbachev, economic stagnation, the Afghan war and alcoholism -- not Reagan.

Ya Reagan just took credit for it. They took down the wall 2 years after his "tear down this wall speech." It's a myth.

Reagan didn't. The Soviet Union crashed their own empire. This myth of him being a fiscal conservative while outspending the ussr on misguided military programs is something that needs to go away.

If you ignore his tweeting, which frankly, is embarrassing more than it's informative, and get your news from somewhere other than CNN, you might realize that Trump's actually getting a lot of good stuff done.

You mean evidence like this?

"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-...

This is the secret genius hypothesis. I don't give it much credit, considering how the administration is flailing on almost every other front. It is possible that all of this was Trump being very clever. But it is as easily explained by him being an impulsive fool, and that explains all the rest as well. But if he keeps on making big foreign policy gains like this, then I may have to reevaluate.

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.

Trump confronted Kim, which was different, whether you think that was rational or not really depends on whether you think that was dangerous or stupid or a reasonable response to someone threatening the US.

Irrational behavior from world leaders can be effective.

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.

M.A.D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Trump has been talking to Kissinger quite a bit.

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.

North Korea was always completely driven by internal politics, that's what happens in a nation that completely isolates itself from its neighbors.

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.

I think China had a private conversation with him and told him, in direct terms, he needed to start playing well with others. The risk to China was just too great, given their proximity.

I believe they have been under really tough sanctions. Maybe this triggered change?

Yes, the sanctions strangled the North Korean economy and they were actually enforced this time around. China had too much pressure from the US to violate the sanctions.

Kim probably felt that his rule was coming to an end if he didn't cave in.

Except your theory doesn't fly: https://www.ft.com/content/db738fb8-3ed2-11e7-82b6-896b95f30...

> What changed that North Korea would be serious this time?

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.

I would expand and point 1 and say that the whole situation was also starting to draw too much military hardware to SK, Japan, and US bases. 3 Carrier battle groups were starting to partol the South China sea. China is not ready for a major conflict on its border. NK was becoming a liability in more than just a mountain collapse.

I'm going to guess the sanctions were actually biting the people in the upper echelons of NK leadership. Probably due to the fact that the Chinese were actually helping out in enforcing the sanctions on their border with NK. I've read that North Korea is run kind of like a feudal society, so long as Kim Jong can keep the military leaders happy with luxury goods and keep the military relatively well cared for. Once that stops happening, it can probably cause some extra anxiety for Kim Jong Un.

Russian and Chinese smugglers were specifically targeted with sanctions and asset freezing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sa...

Combination of trump’s unpredictability, being able to negotiate from a position of strength and a South Korean leader who wants to pursue peace.

A lot of Americans are giving Trump the props on this one. But what about Xi Jinping? He just recently secured his position, just met with Kim Jog Un and has the most vested interest in cooling off NK. He has a brand new naval fleet asserting dominance over the South China Sea.

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.

I expect the reason for the public response is largely thanks to the media reaction a year ago when everyone predicted that Trump would bring in a nuclear third world war. People put forward the dooms day clock, but the result today is very much the opposite.

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.

Not everyone. The status-quo wasn’t working and Trump said he would use China to get to NK even in the campaign. It appears he may have done it.

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.

> I expect the reason for the public response is largely thanks to the media reaction a year ago when everyone predicted that Trump would bring in a nuclear third world war. People put forward the dooms day clock, but the result today is very much the opposite.

...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.

China wont let 2 Koreas unite as you suggested.

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).

Recall Xi had Kim over for dinner a few weeks ago. This is Xi signaling to the world and his internal constituents that he can exert soft diplomatic control of Asian satellites.

Kim definitely shows the prowess to profit from these 2 countries. I am very eager to see what he can pull off.

As much as I desire democracy and power to everyone, these kind of powerful people conflict is so tense and entertaining.

With all the nukes and missiles, Kim pressed for better terms.

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.

On the other hand there's this: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-43894394 They'll be out of the test grounds for a while. And it's not like their launches went great.

What changed? Nothing.. China is slowly but steadily working on its plan to push the US as far away from their borders as possible. Next step Afganistan or Taiwan.

I think it is completely because of Trump. He is unpredictable. He is in charge of a nation with the capability to carry out his threats. He talked to North Korea in the sort of bombastic way they talked to the U.S. for decades. This was a sudden change for the U.S. and certainly was unnerving to North Korea.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory ?

I strongly doubt it has anything to do with Trump or the US. NK has been thumbing its nose at the US for decades in spite of all the embargoes and sanctions. 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.

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.

This peace agreement was largely due to Trump shaking things up, South Korea is already acknowledging this.

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 strongly doubt it has anything to do with Trump or the US.

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.

> One would think SK foreign minister would have some insight into the process

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.

> I'm sure he does

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

Agree he is a crazy bully ... but an emphasis on the bully bit. ie bullys don't pick on those that can fight back.

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.

Two main things. First, North Korea can now semi-credibly threaten to nuke the US, which makes invading them tantamount to political suicide in the US. It’s likely their nuke would fail or miss or be intercepted, but no President wants to be the guy that got Hawaii or San Francisco nuked.

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.

On the US side there was a shift in policy under Trump toward sanctioning and freezing specific Russian and Chinese companies and individuals who were enabling loopholes for the North Korean elite around the general sanctions. Previous US policy avoided targeting smugglers for whatever reason - possibly due to fear of North Korean retaliation if their elite were cut off.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sa...

"What changed that North Korea would be serious this time?"

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...

Exactly. That train trip is the key factor here everyone is forgetting. The whole scenario was causing Japan and SK to invite too much US hardware so close to China and was looking more and more like an excuse for pre-emption. China isn't fully ready for a face off.

Came here to say this. For the first time, in the last 6 months China properly put the economic screws on North Korea. They shut down the border markets and routes and also banned North Korean sales of coal, seafood and textiles. They have made token gestures after previous nuclear tests and such, but this was real, consequential action. Also Kim recently returned from a rare train trip to Beijing. If you want to understand what's going on, follow the money. Yes North Korea has improved a bit economically in the last 5 years or so, but China has finally made it crystal clear to Kim that the show is over.

NK's leadership is vulnerable to being starved -- not just themselves, but the people, who if starved hard enough would hang the leadership from lamp posts.

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.

Do you think Trump could get America to go Metric?

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.

If he were somehow motivated that this was in our interest, I think he maybe he could.

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.

Switch to the metric system? I'm all for it. I doubt it rises to the level of the President's attention, honestly. It might not be until we get an engineer or scientist as President that we switch.

Citation needed. Sanctions placed on the DPRK under the current administration are not more intense than those under previous administrations. The World Food Program, which analyzes the food security of North Korea, reports the food situation in North Korea is continuing to gradually improve. Current sanctions target various North Korean exports and the import of oil, natural gas, and textiles, but not food. DPRK agricultural production in 2017 was higher than it was in 2015. Additionally, the DPRK has gone through massive food shortages before without a regime change. Between 1994 and 1998, between 5-10% of the population died from starvation, and yet no regime change.

We do know (from press reports) that the President has been getting China to cooperate on trade with NK. Are those reports correct, and has China not cheated? I don't know, but if you recall when Chinese and NK oil tankers were caught doing oil transfers on the high seas, you might agree that the U.S. administration is probably keeping good tabs on that. Evidently they (China, DPRK) must be taking Trump seriously. How seriously is yet to be seen -- there is not yet a deal, and we'll have to see, for perhaps they are still trying to play the U.S., and the Administration might fall for whatever Xi and Kim have in mind.

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.

My personal (probably garbage) theory is that Kim Jong Un knows that Trump makes America significantly weaker, and therefore indirectly makes NK stronger, so wants to give a reason to vote him back in for a second term.

This event is certainly a fascinating study in cognitive dissonance.

> significantly weaker

ISIS would beg to differ.

This is classic Poe's law: so ridiculous it surely must be satire, but some Trump supporters actually would believe something like it. I mean, ISIS lost all its major strongholds well before Trump was president. If you really did mean this, you presumably have a theory that involves time travel.

Trump happened and that's what changed I think. Not because Trump is some genius or something but just because he have unlocked things by his shear un-orthodox, not following the rules and keep everyone guessing approach.

I think it's mostly due to their nuclear program being successful at producing an H-Bomb as well as a warhead.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com