Korean talks

The two Koreas are having their first high level talks since December 2015. They may also be an opportunity for North Korea to go to the Olympics in the South.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42574870

Could it be argued that Trump's hardline stance towards the North helped this to happen?

Johnlives:

Could it be argued that Trump's hardline stance towards the North helped this to happen?

possibly. by forcing south korea to try and make peace since you know mad man with a nuke button. because if the US goes to war with NK SK have the most to lose.

Well, having two heads of state bicker about the size of their Kill Everyone in South Korea button was probably uniquely motivating to South Korea, sure.

Johnlives:
The two Koreas are having their first high level talks since December 2015. They may also be an opportunity for North Korea to go to the Olympics in the South.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42574870

Could it be argued that Trump's hardline stance towards the North helped this to happen?

I mean sure, it's definitely the US president getting into a dick measuring contest and not the new (ish) South Korean president who has been on record wanting to bring back talks. Let's also ignore that talks and even agreements between the North and the South happen every few years as well (2015 talks and agreement then more talks).

Here's a great page showing the multitude of talks and agreements throughout the 2000s that only took a break (by the South's choice) from 2010-2015 due to NK killing 46 SK sailors (torpedo attack on a ship), 2 SK marines (island artillery attack), and SK 2 civilians (island artillery attack) during 2010.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea%E2%80%93South_Korea_relations#Reconciliation_and_antagonism

It could be argued, but it's a bad argument.

The DPRK's foreign policy is essentially a modern day realpolitik. If threats can get something, they'll make threats. If talk can get something, then they'll talk. If they can, then they'll play different countries off against each other to get more concessions. It's naive to assume that North Korea has any real interest in agreement with other nations beyond immediate self-interest, but that self-interest can (and has) in the past been used to deescalate the situation.

evilthecat:
It could be argued, but it's a bad argument.

The DPRK's foreign policy is essentially a modern day realpolitik. If threats can get something, they'll make threats. If talk can get something, then they'll talk. If they can, then they'll play different countries off against each other to get more concessions. It's naive to assume that North Korea has any real interest in agreement with other nations beyond immediate self-interest, but that self-interest can (and has) in the past been used to deescalate the situation.

Also this.

If anything, Trump has given the North Koreans a much better hand in any talks with the South Koreans. The South's largest ally has gone from measured, intelligent, and steadfastly committed to unstable, child-like, and inconsistent. The South Koreans have as much (if not more) to fear from Trump having a meltdown as they do from Kimmy having a meltdown. The NK delegation would have to be composed of brain-dead monkeys to not be able to take advantage of that.

evilthecat:
If threats can get something, they'll make threats. If talk can get something, then they'll talk.

This was what I was getting at. Has the North's threatening behaviour been successful with Donald?

Johnlives:
This was what I was getting at. Has the North's threatening behaviour been successful with Donald?

Yes.

I don't think there's any question about that. They've drawn their biggest international enemy into a diplomatic slap fight while the rest of the world looks on in horror. Anything which weakens US credibility in dealing with them or which weakens the ability of the US to dictate foreign policy across the region is good for them. The DPRK doesn't have to worry if other nations see it as dangerous or unstable, the US, on the other hand, undeniably does.

The US has been in favour of strict sanctions on the DPRK for a while now (despite no signs that they work). That's not going to change in the foreseeable future, whoever is in power or whatever the regime in Pyongyang does. The question is whether the other nations in the region are going to follow that line. If anything, the ROK seeking to resume diplomatic relations kind of suggests they're not.

Johnlives:
Could it be argued that Trump's hardline stance towards the North helped this to happen?

Potentially. South Korea may have decided its main ally is sufficiently unstable that it can no longer rely on it to safely organise policy with North Korea.

Therefore, SK might hold separate talks because doing so can distance itself from the USA (i.e. Trump) and attempt to keep SK out of the loop of US-NK aggression. It may also be to develop avenues to deal with NK that circumvent the USA's influence in future. If so, this will increase the likelihood NK can act with more freedom on the international stage; also substantially undermine US prestige and policy objectives in the Far East.

Johnlives:
The two Koreas are having their first high level talks since December 2015. They may also be an opportunity for North Korea to go to the Olympics in the South.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-42574870

Could it be argued that Trump's hardline stance towards the North helped this to happen?

Well, I wouldn't credit him for it. Trump's stance towards North Korea is not the result of a complex and carefully-orchestrated con job; it's because he makes policy by tweet, and he literally just tweets based on what he sees on Fox News. It's not a case of a genius pretending to be insane so as to win some absurdly-high-stakes game of brinkmanship; it's a case of Trump not being very smart.

In this particular case, the prospect of separate NK/SK talks actually works out in the North's favour. North Korea will demand that scheduled military exercises be postponed or cancelled, or that sanctions be lifted, and South Korea will agree because South Korea really, really, really doesn't want to get nuked. The DPRK will get political and economic oxygen and come away with more fodder for their propaganda machine, while validating their decision to get nuclear weapons in the first place. Koreans will continue to suffer and die under Kim's regime, because no-one wants to cut the Korean knot and each administration has continually punted the issue onto their successors, until now nuclear conflict seems like the only way to ever resolve the problem.

I really can't over-emphasise how shitty the North Korea situation is in the long-term. Like, the whole principle of preventing worldwide nuclear proliferation - that's dead. Gone as soon as they tested their first bomb and everybody pretended like that was cool. North Korea will sell anything to anyone. They sell crystal meth, for Christ's sake. It's insanely naive to think that they won't do the same with their nukes. In ten year's time they'll have an economy that revolves around exporting nuclear weapons, and then we're all fucked.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here