Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods
Foreign Affairs wrote:Trump is certainly correct in pointing out that he made history in meeting amicably with his North Korean adversary. But it is yet to be determined whether he made a historic breakthrough or a historic blunder. No previous U.S. president considered it prudent to embark on summitry with so little preparation or on terms so favorable to the other side, let alone to promise to unilaterally discontinue defensive joint U.S.–South Korean military exercises on the Korean Peninsula. For his part, Kim can rightfully boast that he has accomplished what his father and grandfather could only dream of: achieving the twin goals of building a viable nuclear weapons capability and then winning international acceptance as a “very honorable” peer, as he was referred to by the leader of the free world.
In the end, the joint statement that emerged from the summit is but a diluted version of numerous past aspirational documents put forward by North Korea and its negotiating partners. It lightly echoes inter-Korean agreements dating back to the 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It contains watered-down versions of pledges in international deals such as the 1994 Agreed Framework and the 2005 joint statement of the fourth round of the six-party talks. It allows North Korea to slide from its previous commitment “to abandon all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs and [return] at an early date to the [Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty].” And it offers a vague promise “to work toward complete denuclearization.” This can hardly be construed as progress. The Singapore joint statement is worrisomely silent on ballistic missiles, let alone chemical weapons, cyberwarfare, nuclear proliferation, and (unsurprisingly) human rights.
In any case, even a robust joint statement could not serve as a reliable indicator of progress given North Korea’s spotty record of compliance and follow-through. So at this point, what progress can each side credibly claim to have achieved based on its goals coming into the meeting?
North Korea’s most urgent priorities were to loosen the stranglehold of sanctions and to reduce the risk of a U.S. preventive attack or a “bloody nose” strike, all without being forced to relinquish the “treasured sword,” as Kim described them, of its nuclear weapons. Other priorities included using the lure of a peace treaty to undercut U.S.–South Korean military exercises and deployments, eroding the North’s isolation and pariah status, and obtaining economic assistance and investment on terms consistent with regime control and stability. Pyongyang also hoped to alleviate the pressure on the nuclear issue and criticism of its human rights record by finding ways to fracture the solidarity among the five main players: China, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. Kim sought to play them off against one another and strengthen the “accommodationist” camp in South Korea, which sees the South's alliance with the United States as an impediment to inter-Korean rapprochement.
By these measures, the Singapore summit has capped an astonishingly successful spring for Kim.
Beren wrote:Iran is a far more powerful country with far more potential than Kim's NK, actually.
It's not the full article.
Hong Wu wrote:Your article doesn't discuss Iran...
Kirillov wrote:We've had one summit with a fairly non-committal protocol signed. For comparison, it was a long and torturous path that took Reagan and Gorbachev from 'one summit in which positive things were said' to 'the Soviet Union will no longer enforce communism in the signatories of the Warsaw Pact'.
I have no faith that Trump is either capable or willing to undertake that kind of tortuous path. Gorbachev and Reagan were both inspired by conviction, rightly or wrongly, which allowed them to take a policy path lasting years. I don't believe that is the case here, especially with regards to Trump.
Kirillov wrote: I have no faith that Trump is either capable or willing to undertake that kind of tortuous path. Gorbachev and Reagan were both inspired by conviction, rightly or wrongly, which allowed them to take a policy path lasting years. I don't believe that is the case here, especially with regards to Trump.
Kaiserfarrt wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if the leftist commentariat had expressed the same scepticism about Reagan back when the process with Gorbachev started.
collybic wrote:Doesn't really make a difference. Those that follow will remember this day as being historic and the countries relationship is certain to change for the better.
@FiveofSwords If you think that science is mer[…]