Murder /Assassination of Kim Jong Nam

[sukumvit boy]

Preliminary analysis by North Korea policy experts here in the West seems to indicate that the apparent execution of Kim Jong Nam by his half-brother Kim Jong Un is evidence of increasing paranoia about the instability of the political system in North Korea.
Let's hope so.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/world/asia/kim-jong-nam-assassination-north-korea.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FKim%20Jo ng-un&action=click&contentCollection=
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/kim-jong-un-s-half-brother-killed-why-would-he-n721201

[Stavros]

Channel 4 News in the UK had a report on this which suggested that Kim Jong Nam was too erratic a person to be left to his own fate, but that with the Missile test this was designed to test the reaction of President Donald Trump. Whether or not this spells the end of the 'effeminate', Eric Clapton fanatic King Jong-Chul, Dear Leader Kim's other brother, is not clear -Chul may have been in the party that arrested their Uncle Jung Sung-taek, subsequently executed. Truth is nobody at this juncture wants North Korea to fall apart, but they don't want it to 'grow' either, if that means developing an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile. This may be one area where the Trump administration and China can reach an agreement. Who knows?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/05/22/the-sad-story-of-kim-jong-chul-the-north-korean-leaders-brother-and-eric-clapton-megafan/?utm_term=.485bae46a566

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-chul#2011.E2.80.93present

[sukumvit boy]

Kim Jong-un is very insecure , and with good reason.
China is under a great deal of pressure from the US and the international community to reign-in N Korea. With international sanctions in place China is the only thing that is keeping the Kim regime afloat , if China decides it is no longer in their best interest to support Kim the regime will collapse.
Additionally , as noted in Jieun Baek's excellent recent book ."North Korea's Hidden Revolution" the old system of isolation is beginning to fall apart.Since the Great Famine of 1994-1998 a free market in goods and outside media has sprung up in plain sight which the government has been powerless to stop. If China decides to pull back it's support the Kim regiem will surely crumble.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/12/12/north-koreas-hidden-revolution-flaubert-black-square-and-the-perfect-pass

[sukumvit boy]

China bows to UN sanction request and halts buying North Korean coal.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-suspends-north-koreas-coal-imports-striking-at-regimes-financial-lifeline/2017/02/18/8390b0e6-f5df-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html?utm_term=.9b4e0397914c

[Stavros]

An interesting article on North Korea which highlights the importance of a 'free market' that has emerged since the 1990s famine, and the continuing mystery over who is actually in day-to-day control in the country. The potential for internal problems has increased as recent events may hurt North Korea's two most important outlets in trade -China and Malaysia.

Full article here-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/26/secretive-north-korea-edging-towards-new-crisis/

[sukumvit boy]

Thanks Stavros , that article is a good summation of the current situation, which is changing fast.
I now see N Korea is seeking talks in the US.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/02/20/us-north-korean-reps-reportedly-prepare-for-talks.html

[sukumvit boy]

For anyone interested in further detailed information about the N Korean political and economic situation the Rand Corporation produced an excellent research report in 2013 "Prepairing for the Possibility of a North Korean Collapse" which is available in pdf format and easy to skim for salient details.
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR300/RR331/RAND_RR331.pdf

[Stavros]

Possible explanations:
1) Kim Jon Nam owed money to criminals who killed him.
2) His half-brother, the Dear Leader Kim Jon Un, who received an honorary doctorate in economics from HELP in Malaysia, killed him because he kills all his rivals and potential rivals.
3) Opponents of the Dear Leader, Dr Kim Jon Un, killed him to foment unrest in the leadership and make the Dear Leader, Dr Kim Jon Un look like he is batshit crazy when in reality he and North Koreans are adored throughout the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/world/asia/following-dear-leader-kim-jong-un-gets-title-from-university-dr-leader.html

[martin48]

My money is on 3



Possible explanations:
1) Kim Jon Nam owed money to criminals who killed him.
2) His half-brother, the Dear Leader Kim Jon Un, who received an honorary doctorate in economics from HELP in Malaysia, killed him because he kills all his rivals and potential rivals.
3) Opponents of the Dear Leader, Dr Kim Jon Un, killed him to foment unrest in the leadership and make the Dear Leader, Dr Kim Jon Un look like he is batshit crazy when in reality he and North Koreans are adored throughout the world.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/26/world/asia/following-dear-leader-kim-jong-un-gets-title-from-university-dr-leader.html

[sukumvit boy]

Excellent thumbnail sketch of the human situation in North Korea from former NY Times journalist and author Blaine Harden.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuAIWOxTEAE

[nitron]

Thanks for the clip, it's good to hear that at least some information of the outside world is filtering in. I'm always impressed by the human capacity to put up with things.

[sukumvit boy]

Thanks for the clip, it's good to hear that at least some information of the outside world is filtering in. I'm always impressed by the human capacity to put up with things.
Yes ,that and the power of human curiosity.

[holzz]

clearly Kim bumped him off. His brother should have headed to the nearest US armed forces base, and say he has secrets in exchange for good treatment.

[sukumvit boy]

Excellent PBS "Frontline" show on N Korea aired yesterday.
Segments include ," Could there be a North Korean 'Spring' " , " What was Kim Jong-un like as a boy " and "Five ways North Koreans are defying the regime".
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/secret-state-of-north-korea/
100297810029791002980

[sukumvit boy]

Evidence shows 40% of N. Korea's real economy comes from supplying chemical and illicit weapons. Including those being used in Syria.

http://www.pri.org/stories/2017-04-21/key-supplier-syrias-chemical-weapons-north-korea (http://www.pri.org/stories/2017-04-21/key-supplier-syrias-chemical-weapons-north-korea)

[sukumvit boy]

North Korea releases US prisoner , in a coma.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/university-of-virginia-student-otto-warmbier-in-a-coma-released-from-north-korea/2017/06/13/febba10a-503d-11e7-91eb-9611861a988f_story.html?utm_term=.1a631ec8bac7

[Stavros]

A claim, unverified as yet, that North Korea has developed a 'small nuclear weapon' that can fit onto one of the inter-continental ballistic missiles they have been launching recently, has produced the following response from the President of the USA, bearing in mind recent threats made by North Korea against the USA:
“North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States...They will be met with the fire and the fury like the world has never seen.”
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/08/donald-trump-north-korea-missile-threats-fire-fury

Given that the world is recalling the centenary of the First World War and just in this last week the battles that raged at Passchendale from July to November -estimated casualties, start at 500,000 -followed by the Second World War, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki not to mention the Korean War, one wonders what the world has yet to see. As if we wanted to see it millions of dead people.

It may be hard to swallow, but North Korea does have a right to defend itself in international law. It also has the right to develop a nuclear capability, though there are instruments in international law which North Korea could and probably should allow to inspect its facilities to assess their safety and compliance with international norms, as Iran has done, in contrast to those nuclear states that deny they even have them, Israel for example. Moreover, given the hostility shown to North Korea, it is not surprising if they are concerned at the potential for harm foreign states pose.

But it is also the case that an attack produces retaliation, and the obvious danger that any sensible General knows is that with a state like North Korea, while it is possible they might 'do a Saddam' and commit a military folly, it is just as likely that a military strike on North Korea would not go without some reaction, even if it is a gesture such as an attack on South Korean shipping with minimal if any casualties, just to show they can and will do it. The irony of all this is that nuclear deterrence appears to be fine for existing nuclear armed states, yet any new state seeking a nuclear weapons capability is assumed, as is the case with Iran and North Korea to be anything from 'reckless' and 'irresponsible' to 'crazy' even though the primary aim is to deter precisely the military attack they fear.

In time the North Korean regime will fail, it has always been hard to sustain autocracy at that level for a long period of time. It would make more sense to maintain pressure on the country in order to weaken the regime, than to attack it, an expensive option which carries the greater danger that the outcome is unknown, just as the USA began bombing the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 and 16 years and a trillion dollars later, is still there, fighting the same enemy.

But hey, the President is a tough guy, and a winner, so maybe he knows something we don't?

[Stavros]

The threat levels in the confrontation between North Korea and the USA have begged more questions than answers. Last week Rex Tillerson was attempting to calm people down and send messages to NK to the effect that the USA is not seeking 'regime change' or open conflict, whereas in less than a week his President threatens precisely that, and the head of the CIA Mike Pompeo has indicated that 'Regime Change' is an option just as General McMaster also claims all options are being considered.

It beggars belief that North Korea is targeting the US naval base at Guam -why? One wonders what it will achieve. There is a precedent for this sort of folly, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands [Las Malvinas] in 1982 having calculated that the British would not take any action to remedy the situation. They were not intimidated by the fact that the UK has nuclear weapons, and appear to have been surprised when Thatcher launched the 'Task Force' while the end-game was the end for the Generals. North Korea may calculate that the US will retaliate if it hits Guam, but fall short of raining bombs on the North that would kill a lot of people, but the US would have to do something and having sponsored a new round of sanctions a less than diplomatic attack would seem to be on the cards even if nobody knows what it might be.

The final option, terrifying in its implications, was given the by the British born son of an Hungarian nationalist, Sebastian Gorka who works for the NSA.
Asked what tools the Trump administration might use to increase its impact, Sebastian Gorka, a presidential foreign policy adviser, responded: “We have the president’s Twitter feed.” He added: “If you can win a US election with it, I think it’s pretty powerful, don’t you think?”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/08/trump-administration-north-korea-diplomacy-talks

Feed the ducks, then, and see what happens....

[blackchubby38]

I'm not trying to downplay things, but it really sounds like you have two guys in Trump and Kim Jon Un are just doing a lot of dick swinging.

[sukumvit boy]

Excellent interview with Dr. Henry Kissinger on The Charlie Rose Show this week, about his recommendations for immediate and long term future options for North Korea.
https://charlierose.com/guests/131

[Stavros]

Excellent interview with Dr. Henry Kissinger on The Charlie Rose Show this week, about his recommendations for immediate and long term future options for North Korea.
https://charlierose.com/guests/131

As expected a standard realist view of international relations with two flaws in the argument. China acting in its national interests rather than to suit the interests of the USA is pure realism and could have come out of a textbook from the 1950s, just as the argument that at times, apparently now, the interests of the US and China coincide, that being the need to attempt some control of North Korea, and specifically its nuclear programme.
The first flaw in the argument is that realist theory when applied to nuclear war created the doctrine of deterrence which argues that the consequences of a nuclear war are so destructive that first use is disavowed by the states who own nuclear weapons. But the UK in 2006 did claim the right of first use even if it was hypothetical, and Theresa May shortly after becoming Prime Minister also said that in the right circumstances the UK would deploy them, although she failed to acknowledge that the UK cannot do so without US permission. In addition, deterrence was fundamental to the Cold War, yet suddenly the prospect of Iran and North Korea developing this capability undermines deterrence because of the view that both states are irrational and would use them, even though the original argument in deterrence would still apply. Kissinger can't bring himself to admit Kim is a rational leader, because then he would be on a level playing field, yet it can be argued he is indeed a rational leader and the rhetorical flourishes about attacks on the USA serve to feed a domestic audience with samples of his power, rather than make Americans scared of being fried by night.

The second flaw is the assumption that only pressure on China can make a difference in North Korea, whereas the recent documentary on the murder of Kim Jong-Nam illuminated the deep relationship between North Korea and Malaysia which is a crucial supply line for the military and the Kim family in particular. Yet we do not hear of any pressure being applied to Malaysia, even though successfully cutting off the flow of money and supplies would severely perhaps fatally weaken Kim's power base in Pyongyang, much as the PLO sued for peace with Israel when they lost the military, political and crucially, the financial support of the USSR. You can see the film here although there might be copyright issues outside the UK
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b091wy13/this-world-north-korea-murder-in-the-family

The fear of instability is real, the complexity of unifying Korea profound, but would it be any harder than the re-unification of Germany?

[sukumvit boy]

Oh , looks good , brand new !
That link didn't work , this one is ok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9edq0InxJOo

[nitron]

I once heard , Qadafi received letters from his public, he would read them and become heart broken....

They went something like this.....
" Please , dear leader, kill my neighbors dog, it makes so much noise, and I'm afraid it will do me great harm, was it not written that the Prophet himself....."

"...oh and can you move my family closer to the ocean, nothing fancy, of course..."

"... Brother Qadafi , one more favor, send some people and some money ,so that I can replace my door which faces...."


His dreams of a Pan African, Pan Islamic,....whatever......died long before he died..

(Paraphrasing, from documentary on Qadafi, I think by the BBc a year after his death, interviews of people who knew him)



If the fat kid lives there's suffering, if the fat kid dies there's chaos.

[sukumvit boy]

Oh , looks good , brand new !
That link didn't work , this one is ok.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9edq0InxJOo
Well done with lots of new material . Tks Stavros.

[Stavros]

While North Korea continues to provoke and the US and its allies respond, I offer a link to an article which is 10 years old but offers a perspective on North Korea's links to the world economy, suggesting that the republic is better connected to the outside world than is often made out, although I think there will have been changes since it was published in 2007 and some of the trade is modest in terms of revenue.

It looks at -
Arms Sales, including missiles with customers in the Middle East and Africa;
Drugs- North Korea, in addition to giving safe heaven to criminal gangs from China, South Korea and Japan has used them to export opiates and synthetic drugs such as methamphetamines netting somewhere between $71-200 million (estimated revenues); it has also exported heroin -in 2003 a North Korean freighter was seized off the coast of Australia with 125 kilos of heroin on board, most of it from South East Asia.
Counterfeiting -in addition to bank notes, such as the $100 bill, North Korea has also produced counterfeit tobacco products, and pharmaceuticals.
Aid -formal aid from the UN and other NGOs brings money into NK, as do remittances from workers abroad.
The article also looks at a wide range of development projects, and foreign investment, some of which will have fallen off in recent years owing to sanctions.

Nevertheless, it does mean that North Korea has been able to survive sanctions in the past through economic activities that were legal as well as illegal, so it remains to be seen how much more sanctions can achieve and whether or not they would ever be severe enough to cause the North Korean regime to choose an alternative to military might and confrontation.

The article is here-
http://gps.ucsd.edu/_files/faculty/haggard/haggard_publications_north-korea.pdf

[sukumvit boy]

Yes , the paper is certainly still relevant with regard to pointing out the many avenues of revenue and trade that N Korea has developed over the decades. It mentioned "and possibly Syria " regarding arms sales ,which has since been confirmed and includes the chemical weapons recently used in Syria and of course the VX ,the most potent poison ever developed, used to kill Kim Jung Nam. Also the recently discovered ties with and through Indonesia outlined in the excellent BBC documentary (North Korea:Murder in the Family ) above . The video of which we seem to have lost.

[Stavros]

I woke this morning to another round of hysteria regarding North Korea and the various mixed messages coming from the USA which include an attack by the President on South Korean 'appeasement' of the North, the Defence Secretary confirming the US does not intend to bomb North Korea into oblivion, and the claims that China's President Xi is 'pissed off' with North Korea for testing a nuclear missile and raising tensions again. I do have a peaceful solution to this situation.

South Korea's official position is to make the whole of the Korean peninsula nuclear free, and this should be the basis of a new treaty between North and South Korea, with guarantors in China, the USA and Russia. Thus,

1) The Treaty would commit both North and South Korea to a non-nuclear energy and weapons regime, with the guarantors agreeing not to deploy nuclear weapons in either the North or the South.
2) The US would reduce it's military presence in South Korea by 50%, and China act as 'defender of last resort' for North Korea, so that neither North or South Korea need be in fear of an attack by either country or its allies.
3) A UN sponsored package would offer North Korea long-term economic investment in agriculture and industry to stimulate economic growth and reduce North Korea's involvement, or dependency on illegal trade. The aim would be to integrate not isolate North Korea from the regional and world economy.
4) In return, a limited form of 'open border' arrangements between the North and South would enable people from both countries to travel without restriction, with the long term aim of bringing people in the North and South closer together.
5) North and South Korean political and military leaders to hold regular -perhaps every six months- meetings in order to prevent misunderstandings and tensions to run out of control.
6) For the longer term, a more co-ordinated effort to bring the people of Korea and Japan into a dialogue that moves on from the stale rhetoric of the Japanese occupation and bases future relations on friendship and co-operation.

The primary aim is to prevent any escalation of tension into military engagement in the short term, while building the components of a peaceable and practical relationship between North Korea and its neighbours in the long term. It requires a step back from military confrontation by both the USA and North Korea, while offering both the opportunity to see North Korea end its isolation and become more fully integrated in the global economy.

[filghy2]

These would be good ideas in a saner world, but what would be in it for Kim Jong Un to make such a deal and stick to it? It's not unreasonable for him to see nuclear weapons as the best guarantee of his regime's survival. I doubt that he's all that interested in economic development or opening to the rest of the world - the North Korean people may be suffering but he certainly is not. Opening would also loosen the regime's control.

[Stavros]

I understand the strategic logic of nuclear weapons, but only in the context of deterrence, as the use of such weapons on the battlefield by inviting a proportionate retaliation risks far more in terms of destruction than most regimes would consider sane. War after all is fought for a purpose, and in military terms, the armies starting the war expect to be victors at the end of it.

On the other hand, nuclear deterrence has not deterred conventional military campaigns, be it the Falklands/Malvinas invasion by Argentina in 1982, or Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. In addition, there is the intriguing case of Israel in 1973 and the claim that Moshe Dayan or Golda Meir or both considered using their nuclear weapons at an early stage in the war when their lines were overrun by the Egyptians -but that they drew back from it and appealed to the US which raised the nuclear stakes which in turn triggered the USSR to intervene and restrain the Arabs.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/206909/israel-nuclear-weapons-and-the-1973-yom-kippur-war/

In the case of Korea the nuclear option was considered twice in the 1950-53 War, in 1950 when MacArthur proposed dropping 30 atomic bombs to both crush the Communists and their allies and to warn off the USSR, and in 1951 after MacArthur's replacement though the preparations never materialized. A nuclear strike on North Korea was actually ordered by President Nixon in April 1969 when a US spy plane was shot down over the Sea of Japan and Nixon ordered a retaliatory strike -which never happened because Kissinger got on the phone to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the order was rescinded -because Nixon was drunk. Indeed, the claim is

Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor for Nixon at the time, also got on the phone to the Joint Chiefs and got them to agree to stand down on that order until Nixon woke up sober the next morning.

According to Summers and Swan’s book “The Arrogance Of Power: The Secret World Of Richard Nixon,” (https://www.theguardian.com/weekend/story/0,3605,362958,00.html) Kissinger is reported to have told aides on multiple occasions that if the President had his way, there would have been a new nuclear war every week.
http://www.businessinsider.com/drunk-richard-nixon-nuke-north-korea-2017-1?IR=T

We don't enough about the relationship Kim has with the Party and the Army, but we do know that when Kim Il-Sung died there was no immediate transfer of power to Kim Jong-Il but that his success in succeeding his father may have been a trade-off between the family and the army. If one accepts that Kim Il-Sung created a Stalinist autocracy in North Korea, one can appreciate that it survives because the people at the top of the pyramid know that as the echelons reach down to the people, they have enough loyal party members and military personnel to benefit from the regime. Autocracies fail when liberal reforms undermine the autocracy, or when there are enough party or military personnel to rebel against the leadership.

Kim may therefore not care about the state of the economy, largely because his source of wealth is external, but lower down the food-chain there must be party apparatchiks and officers who rely on their position to extract benefits from the local economy, for whom economic growth is essential, so the idea that the regime can sail on without regard to sanctions and their effect is I think an exaggeration. In addition, it would also be possible for disaffected officers to organize a coup within the leadership so that Kim could disappear, never to be seen again (they could even manufacture an illness brought on by stress and hard work) while a cabal of officers take power to preserve it, but also by de-escalating the current tensions.

Nobody needs nuclear weapons, the US laid waste to Korea and Vietnam without them; Mosul is in ruins; the Russians twice attacked Grozny in the 1990s and reduced it to rubble just as Saudi Arabia has spent the last two years destroying the Yemen.

I wonder if within the elites of North Korea, Kim is being goaded to be provocative, or is being viewed as a threat to their interests, so that the 'end game' to this present situation may not require any action by the US, China, or Russia, and take place behind closed doors in Pyongyang.

[sukumvit boy]

LOL, great stuff about Nixon from "The Arrogance of Power" ,tks.
Very interesting proposal regarding N Korea treaty outline in post #27 above. Between your and Kissinger's proposals I think we could make something work.
Would that "Kim could quietly disappear, never to be heard from again" ! That would be the best solution for all concerned .
Dreams can come true as evidenced by the turnaround in Myanmar in 2011.

[Stavros]

I think there are two additional issues involved here, one is the elusive concept of 'international legitimacy' and the other is the 'Neo-Con' strategy of regime change that is associated with the GW Bush Presidency although it has antecedents.

In the case of international legitimacy, one aspect of the Cold War was an attempt by one side to deny the other the legitimacy of being an independent state, claiming that independence was denied by its relations with an external agent. The obvious examples would be West Germany/East Germany -East Germany controlled by the USSR; North Korea/South Korea -North Korea tied to China, and North Vietnam/South Vietnam -North Vietnam dependent on USSR (this was Kissinger's view). In these three cases there was a simple division between capitalism and communism with the tone registered as threat: IF South Vietnam 'falls' to Communism, the rest -from Cambodia to India- will follow. IF the west does not maintain a strong presence in West Germany, the whole of western Europe will face potential invasion from the USSR (people actually believed this rubbish).

North Korea posed something of a dilemma because it had been a victim of Japan's Imperial ambitions as far back as 1910 and while Korean unity was viewed as something positive in the long term, the Chinese- rather than Soviet- sponsored regime in Pyongyang created its own version of communism, resisting the trend taken in East Germany, that appeared to suggest that if the North dominated a new Korea in fact it would be a client state of China and thus no more independent than it was under the Japanese. This in turn played into the view which still holds in some quarters, that China sees itself as an Imperial power in East Asia where Empire does not appeal.

Regime Change comes into the picture because it was both resisted and practiced in the past. Possibly because of the nuclear status of the powers, but more probably because of other practical issues, the West never forced the issue in Germany, indeed it may have been because it was Germany with its difficult history that the confrontation was mostly ideological, though one notes that Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik began a process of 'normalization' which attempted to find common ground between East and West, and that some cross-border initiatives have been and gone between North and South Korea.

But there was one stunning example of regime change before Iraq and that was Kampuchea's reckless invasion of Vietnam in 1979 which led the latter to counter-invade and change the regime in Phnom Penh, ending the ghastly rule of the Khmer Rouge. The consequence, however, in terms of international legitimacy, was that the UN protocols which are opposed to the violent overthrow of one regime by another, meant that, for example, for years afterward, the British government refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new government in Cambodia -which it viewed as a puppet govt of the Vietnamese- thus preferring to give legitimacy to the defeated Khmer Rouge regardless of their crimes against humanity.

This is a crucial point, because sovereignty appears to mean that if the government of a state attacks its own citizens, there is nothing in international law that the UN can do about it, even if the govt selects a minority group within the state. International Humanitarian Law (sometimes the Law of Intervention) is ill-defined. Genocide, as far as I can tell, is best prosecuted after the fact rather than during it. For Russia, as it was for the USSR, this has been a cardinal virtue in international relations which they protected throughout the Cold War as their way of intervening -they claimed at the request of the legitimate government- in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, etc- and which they see as the great Sin of the West, pointing to the aftermath of regime change in Iraq and Libya, and the potential chaos of regime change in Syria.

For all the rhetoric of violent confrontation with North Korea that at least implies regime change, the reality is that most of the parties look at it with the sobering reality of the past. And, for North Korea, being regarded as a legitimate state with all the rights the UN Charter confers, is seen as an essential ingredient to its survival. It doesn't matter how badly run a state may be, stability of the international system rather than instability is preferred and thus one sees the powers tip-toeing around North Korea not really knowing what to do that will produce their desired endgame. But as happened with East Germany and the USSR, autocracy and corruption cannot last and in time these regimes implode, so it may just be a matter of time before internal contradictions bring the North Korean experiment to an end.

[sukumvit boy]

The New Yorker magazine journalist Evan Osnos has recently returned from North Korea , interesting article from the current issue of the magazine.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/18/the-risk-of-nuclear-war-with-north-korea

[Stavros]

One wonders if the President of the USA was making a serious threat when saying of the USA that if 'forced to defend itself and its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea'. It is widely recognized, and not just in the US that there are few military options with regard to North Korea that do not bring with them potentially catastrophic consequences for the inhabitants of both Koreas, but it is also the case that far from being exhausted diplomatic initiatives have yet to be pursued with vigour. I have yet to see anyone attempt to engage with Kim directly by meeting with him and asking him what it is that he wants.

The basic idea that North Korea's attempt to build a nuclear arsenal is a threat to world peace applies to everyone else who has such weapons, be it the US, Russia, India and Pakistan, and Israel -indeed, given the threats Israel has made to attack Iran it would seem logical for Iran to arms itself with nuclear weapons, even though it has now said it will not pursue that goal in a deal from which the President suggests he wants to withdraw the USA's support (a move that would make it more likely for Iran to change policy and develop a nuclear weapons capability). As for the comments he made before the infantile Rocket Man jibe, that relates to those countries that have supplied North Korea, it must include the USA's ally in South Asia, namely Pakistan, and does not even begin to explain how Israel became a nuclear power, starting with the secret deals Ben-Gurion made with France in the 1950s.

Or it could be another attack on China, using North Korea as a proxy, but again one wonders what it is that this President wants when he thinks of the deal on the table that is signed and delivered. On the one hand, he has accused China of currency manipulation and stealing American jobs, but does not want to admit that the success of capitalism in China has given consumers in the USA affordable flat screen tv's, affordable smart phones and computers; affordable clothes; that without capitalism in China in which the US invested billions of dollars, the recession of the 1980s would probably have dragged on for another 20 years.

But this is a man who has built his entire political career on resentment and anger, mostly caused by Barack Obama. He has been encouraged by Stephen Miller (who probably wrote most of the UN speech), Rupert Murdoch and other friends, to select his victims because they suit their agenda of radical change, and not to praise their friends, and not to praise the alternative ways of doing things that are happening right under his nose in the USA. He appears to be turning into an isolated figure, worthy only of ridicule, thus also appearing to be the mirror-image of Rocket Man. Though this could be dangerous, one can only hope that the Generals really are in charge of the US, and that they are not about to rocket the US into another unwinnable overseas adventure at a cost of a Million Lives and a Trillion Dollars. Unless they feel they have to do something to placate the vanity of Saudi Arabia's best friend.

Or maybe we are supposed to live on the edge of a permanent crisis, just in case Americans realise he is the most useless and ineffective President in the history of this office?

[Stavros]

I was looking at some article on the differences between Eastern and Western Germany, and came across this brief but informative article on why the re-unification of the two Koreas, should it ever happen, should not be compared to what happened to Germany after 1989. The article goes some way to explaining the apparent resilience of the regime in North Korea, for example

The Communist regimes in Eastern Europe collapsed so quickly in part because the populations there had shed any identification with the official ideology. In North Korea, Communism remains a rhetorical flourish — much as the word “democratic” in the country’s official name — but doesn’t shape the government’s programs or the population’s affections. The official dogma of juche (roughly, self-reliance) is too abstract and infinitely pliable a concept to command fealty. What is left, however, is nationalism, which the Kim dynasty has deployed in increasing doses to tie the regime’s legitimacy to a putative 5,000-year-old history, distinguish North Korean “purity” from South Korea’s “polluted” cosmopolitanism, and offer an illusion of security to contrast with the insecurities of globalization.

In short, North Korea — unlike the East European regimes of 1989 — seems to be on the verge of remaining the same, with some minor variations, for some time.

Full article is here-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-feffer/why-north-korea-today-is_b_4767687.html

[broncofan]

One wonders if the President of the USA was making a serious threat when saying of the USA that if 'forced to defend itself and its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea'. It is widely recognized, and not just in the US that there are few military options with regard to North Korea that do not bring with them potentially catastrophic consequences for the inhabitants of both Koreas, but it is also the case that far from being exhausted diplomatic initiatives have yet to be pursued with vigour. I have yet to see anyone attempt to engage with Kim directly by meeting with him and asking him what it is that he wants.

A war with North Korea is likely to kill hundreds of thousands or millions. Saber rattling without a war is likely to make North Korea accelerate its weapons programs and act. Sanctions without any attempt at talks is unlikely to deter North Korea. The only option is as you say other diplomatic initiatives that include discussions with China and negotiations with Kim to minimize the threat. The fact that Trump is engaged in saber rattling and is whipping up conflict makes me believe he is interested in war. Everything he has done so far has taken a potential threat and made it more immediate. It has done nothing to deter or dissuade or neutralize.

Assuming that there is some coordination within his administration, and that's not a perfectly safe assumption, it doesn't look like he wants to be tough because in this case it might deter, but because it will cause war.

[sukumvit boy]

http://charlierose.com/videos/31007
BBC international correspondent Lyse Doucet reports on N Korea , with Charlie Rose.

[sukumvit boy]

Former CIA Deputy Directer Michael Morrell and Nicholas Burns of The Harvard Kennedy School discuss N Korea.

http://charlierose.com/videos/31011

[sukumvit boy]

I noticed some discussion in the media lately on he point that Trump has decided to surround himself with generals , and the old adage that ,"when you're a hammer everything looks like a nail ",with regard to what to do about North Korea.

[Stavros]

On the one hand the Generals satisfy the needs of a President who wants to reverse the 'strategic caution' of President Obama by providing the rationale for a military attack. Generals regularly practice 'war games' to see how a military event begins, how it is conducted, the impact it has, how it ends, and what the consequences are. They do this for North Korea, for Iran, and many other scenarios.

On other other hand, presenting the case in terms of what a military event looks like is not the same as advocating it, and the impression one gets is that the Generals have said yes, an attack on North Korea's military installations is possible and would be effective, but would also ignite retaliation from the North with the South its targets, so that the negative political consequences outweigh any military advantage.

A General on the BBC today suggested again that a military strike that targeted Iran's production of missiles was possible in practical terms, and one could see how the US would argue it has a military advantage in reducing Iran's missile capabilities. But, again, other than the loss of life issue, and setting aside the view that such a strike would only delay further production of missiles, Iran would also retaliate, but not in the manner one is led to expect North Korea would retaliate.

The example is the USS Vincennes obliterating Iran Airflight 655 in July 1988 killing all 290 passengers and crew. In December of the same year Pan Am Flight 103 blew up over the Scottish town of Lockerbie killing all 259 passengers and crew and 11 people on the ground. All the evidence suggests this was retaliation by Iran, and is an example of how Iran could retaliate, and the US knows this.

In the meantime, Rex Tillerson has shredded the Department of State of many of its foreign policy specialists, others who were appointed in the Obama era left when the new Presidency began, which makes one wonder if there is anyone in the building who has any expertise in Iran and Korea, not that this matters to the President who appears to rely on Netanyahu for intelligence on Iran, a bad source with its own agenda. And at the same time the President is talking up war with North Korea, the US has yet to appoint an ambassador to South Korea.
While this gives the Generals the keys to the door of the Oval Office one can only hope they caution the very restraint the President associates with Obama, as he is dedicated to trashing everything Obama achieved because the former President made a fool of him in public, and nobody gets away with that.

[Stavros]

From today's Press:

Donald Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/donaldtrump) has accepted an invitation from the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, to hold an unprecedented summit meeting to discuss the future of the embattled regime’s nuclear and missile programme.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/08/donald-trump-north-korea-kim-jong-un-meeting-may-letter-invite-talks-nuclear-weapons

From the press in 1994

North Korea and South Korea have agreed to hold a summit meeting to resolve nuclear tensions, the Associated Press reported South Korean officials as saying. It quoted them as saying that the North Korean leader had proposed the meeting through Mr. Carter and that President Kim Young-Sam of South Korea had accepted but that the details have yet to be worked out.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/18/world/carter-visit-to-north-korea-whose-trip-was-it-really.html

Madeline Albright eventually made the trip:

President Bill Clinton didn’t go meet with Kim Jong Un’s father himself, but eager for a diplomatic win at the end of his presidency, he sent Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for the meeting in 2000. Writing in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/madeleine-albright-north-korea.html) in 2017, Albright recalled, “I held two days of intensive talks, during which [Kim Jong Il] appeared willing to accept more significant restraints on the missile programs than we had expected.” But she continued, “Obviously, if this dilemma were easy to resolve, it would have been settled long ago. The fundamental problem is that the North Korean leadership is convinced it requires nuclear weapons to guarantee its own survival.”
http://time.com/5192579/trump-meets-kim-jong-un-north-korea/

[flabbybody]

Please mention that Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright had at least three clearly defined opportunities in the 1990's to kill bin Laden (prior to 9/11)
Given overwhelming intel on his location and his endless public promises to commit a horrific terrorist attack against the United States, they choose to defer. Was it the Clinton Saudi money?
Yet I see Albright on cable TV news, to this very day, comment and criticize Trump's foreign policy as if she's some elite expert on diplomacy.
Why is she not held accountable for 9/11? No one asks her why she allowed the atrocity to happen

[Stavros]

Please mention that Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright had at least three clearly defined opportunities in the 1990's to kill bin Laden (prior to 9/11)
Given overwhelming intel on his location and his endless public promises to commit a horrific terrorist attack against the United States, they choose to defer. Was it the Clinton Saudi money?
Yet I see Albright on cable TV news, to this very day, comment and criticize Trump's foreign policy as if she's some elite expert on diplomacy.
Why is she not held accountable for 9/11? No one asks her why she allowed the atrocity to happen

I think you are conflating two separate issues. My post was intended to dampen the hysteria in the media over the proposed meeting between the US President and Kim Jong Un which is not the first time a proposed meeting between the two heads of state of the US and North Korea has been proclaimed. The first did not happen, and this latest one has not been confirmed by North Korea, there are no plans for the meeting with regard to whatever 'deal' might be on the table, and the US State Department has limited expertise on North Korea as Rex Tillerson -who was not told about the 'historic meeting' until after it had been broadcast to the media- has been shredding jobs at State and the US still has no Ambassador to South Korea.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/north-korea-talks/555041/

The issue with regard to the Clinton administration and its three opportunities to kill Bin Laden is problematic; I am not sure what Madeline Albright has to say on the matter is of any importance, she was a lightweight then and now.

I rely in this instance on the account in Steve Coll's Ghost Wars (2004) in which he discusses the assassination proposals in 1998 and 1999, the first on Zawhar Kili camp near Khost in Afghanistan, where Bin Laden the intelligence claimed, would be attending a major gathering of al-Qaeda and allied supporters. The camp was hit with cruise missiles on the same day as the attack on the chemical factory in the Sudan, but it is claimed Bin Laden had left the meeting by the time the missiles struck. Clinton was not happy with the consequences of the attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan which appeared to make Bin Laden stronger as a survivor of American 'aggression' -in spite of the fact that al-Qaeda had earlier in 1998 declared war on the USA- and the fear that another attack would kill innocent civilians was a major issue as it is still is today.

Thus in the second opportunity, a report Bin Laden was due to visit the Haji Habash house in Kandahar the problem was that George Tenet said the intelligence was 'single threaded' meaning it did not have sufficient back up from another source and the location was too vulnerable for civilians casualties.

The third opportunity came in February 1999 when reports suggested Bin Laden was out hunting in Helmand with members of the royal family from the United Arab Emirates, there is even a claim the CIA had identified the tent he was sleeping in. Yet within the CIA there was still doubt as Bin Laden had not been identified through any satellite photos, and the fact that the UAE was an ally of the US meant they were cautious about blowing up half the royal family and their guests with no Bin Laden corpse to show for it.

Coll also argues that as this coincided with the impeachment hearings in Congress, Clinton was weak and distracted, so when weighing the balance of argument on this, you need to consider the strategic benefits of striking the targets with the political outcome, and in all three cases the justification was strong but the evidence their target was at point 'X' was not 100%.

That is the kind of gamble that in the end paid off when Bin Laden was tracked down to Abbottabad, but with more certainty than on the previous occasions.

More problematic still is the possibility that the US having told Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence of the first strike in 1998 that they in turn leaked it to the Taliban and via them to Bin Laden, in which case it is not the relationship with Saudi Arabia that matters in these assassination attempts, but the relationship with the military and intelligence in Pakistan; while the close relationship with the UAE may have led the US not to strike in Helmand without the 100% guarantee Bin Laden was there -the CIA unit tracking him was convinced.
Again, the Clinton administration in 1998 listened to the proposal of Nawaz Sharif for the formation of a commando unit acting with the support of the Pakistan military to track down and kill Bin Laden, which went nowhere as trust between the ISI and the US had more or less collapsed at this time. In fact according to Sharif, he told the Americas if they were serious about killing Bin Laden all they needed to do was to 'send a few men into Afghanistan with briefcases full of dollars, and they would have got the job done' (p430). If this is all that was needed, why didn't Pakistan do that and earn the gratitude of the USA?
That the dots were not joined before 9/11 to prevent it, if that were possible, remains one of those things which people will argue about for years. One could just as easily argue that had the US not become an intimate player in the civil war in Afghanistan or waged war against Iraq none of it would have happened, but that is relegated to the 'What if?' chapter of history.

References to the assassination attempts in Steve Coll: Ghost Wars. The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2011 (Penguin Books, 2004)

Zawhar Kili Camp 1998 pp409-412.
Haji Habash house, Kandahar 1998, pp422-423.
Hunting party, Helmand province 1999, pp445-459.

[Stavros]

With newspapers reporting that Mike Pompeo has been to North Korea for 'talks' with Kim Jong-Un the prospect of a peace treaty to end the Korean War is being talked up, as is the claim the North has agreed to a process of 'de-nuclearization' though it it is not clear what that means. But it is also not clear what, other than ending the war, the Treaty would achieve, as my assumption has been that neither side wants two Koreas. It could be that the North will no longer lay claim to the South and vice versa, but according to reports the propaganda in the North has paved the way for the talks with hints at what it wants, thus:

...Pyongyang has issued calls for unity, sending a rare announcement to all Koreans earlier this year exhorting them to “smash” obstacles to reunification and to “promote contact, travel, cooperation between North and South Korea”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/north-south-korea-summit-treaty-peace-talks-trump-war-armistice-a8309606.html

So is this 'reunification' just an opportunity for the North to become involved in the economy of the South to buttress the privileged class that runs it? That it is not reunification at all but just an elaborate ruse to get around sanctions? And if it means ditching nuclear weapons, it has to work to preserve the Northern elite or it would not be worth the effort. But what does the South get out of this, and is the USA's primary aim to secure the Nobel Peace Prize for its so-called 'President'?

[Stavros]

More information is dribbling out of South Korea that gives deeper meaning to what North Korea means by 'de-nuclearization'--

North Korea (https://www.theguardian.com/world/north-korea) has expressed a desire for the “complete denuclearisation” of the Korean peninsula without attaching preconditions such as the withdrawal of US troops, the South Korean president has said.

But,
North Korea has said over the years that it could consider giving up its nuclear arsenal if the US removed its troops from South Korea and withdrew its so-called nuclear deterrence umbrella from South Korea and Japan.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/19/north-korea-wants-complete-denuclearisation-says-seoul

I don't know if this is still North Korea's position, but I would expect it to be the preferred position of both China and Russia which separately or together would like to reduce the USA's military presence in East Asia to their strategic benefit. Thus, the position of Japan could also make a deal harder -or easier- as it relies on the USA's defence guarantee -unless Japan revises its 'self-defence only' --

Since 1947, Japan’s constitution has forbidden the formation of a traditional military force. The country has maintained only a Self Defense Force (SDF), the mission of which has been to protect the Japanese mainland. Even within these limitations, the SDF has performed a paramilitary, logistical role, supporting U.S. troops based in Japan in exchange for promises of protection. Some experts now see this dynamic shifting. Arguments for "remilitarization"—or military "normalization," as many proponents term it—have gained currency over the last two decades.
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/japan-and-its-military
see also
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/strategic-review-of-japans-military/

So what looks like the kind of deal that the current US administration wants, may contain too many add-ons to be acceptable, unless Shinzo Abe has taken the position that it would be acceptable to Japan if he can change the Constitution which itself rests on him staying in power or his successor also seeking constitutional change. Japan is concerned with the extent to which China is creating a physical presence in disputed islands in the China Sea but a military confrontation would not seem to make sense even if it is an excuse to change the constitution. But North Korea has relied on its demonization of Japan as an 'aggressor' since the 1940s and would thus have to swallow hard to see its 'historic enemy' regain the level of military competence it used to invade the peninsula in 1910.

The other issue which puzzles me is that while a peace treaty might end the state of war between the two Koreas, does it mean that both North and South will accept the division of the country? Or, perhaps the fantasy project, has the North Korean elite realised it cannot carry on and is seeking a long informal transition that will see the two Koreas merge through trade, like the EU?

[sukumvit boy]

N Korea ready to suspend nuclear testing

North Korea is now desperate for a way out of economic sanctions.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/north-korean-leader-suspends-nuclear-and-missile-tests-shuts-down-test-site/2018/04/20/71ff2eea-44e7-11e8-baaf-8b3c5a3da888_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.875662b10b32

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=sukumvit boy;1834756]N Korea ready to suspend nuclear testing
North Korea is now desperate for a way out of economic sanctions.

All so odd, I mean they spend all that money on prestige projects and then just drop it all? And so far they have the USA dancing on the end of a string, awarding the 'rocket man' with the international recognition he craves, and needs to prove to North Korea he is truly important. He isn't caving in to/crawling to the USA to meet an American President, the Americans are travelling thousands of miles to meet him.

What does North Korea get in return? That surely is where the truth of 'the deal' will be revealed.

[sukumvit boy]

I don't think the North intends to "drop it all" in any real sense . Now that they have proven they have (almost) the nuclear and missile capability they will consider that a bargaining chip ,whereas I think that they realize that to see anyway out of the present sanctions they need to put a lid on those projects.
It's a tough job , being a ruthless dictator , and trying to keep a nation of people terrified and ignorant in the digital age .
Just happen to be reading ,"Why Nations Fail : The Origins of Power , Prosperity and Poverty" although published in 2012 the principles laid out by the authors seem universally valid.
Excellent read. Simply put ,they compare the societies in history produced by extractive political and economic systems and institutions vs inclusive political and economic systems and institutions. A key point being that the two systems are mutually exclusive. If the people in power loosen the reigns a little too much the system falls apart .

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524356435&sr=1-1&keywords=why+nations+fail








l (https://www.amazon.com/Why-Nations-Fail-Origins-Prosperity/dp/0307719227/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1524356435&sr=1-1&keywords=why+nations+fail)

[Stavros]

I think the elite in North Korea are innovating to survive, as they own the state and have an existential reason to preserve as much as they have. I think it is a given that China does not want a re-unified Korea, so this gives North Korea another opportunity to extract as many benefits as it can from the outside world to survive, but it cannot survive in the long term and I suspect that if key supporters of Kim in the military die or are for whatever reason no longer there the system will fall apart, just as the USSR collapsed from within as before it did the weak and divided Autocracy of the Tsar.

Thanks for the link to Why Nations Fail. There are some good reviews (Jared Diamond in the link below), but the topic has been dealt with before in other works, the most famous being Barrington Moore Jr's The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966) [link below].

I would also recommend Joel Migdal, Strong Societies and Weak States (1988), but while I would also recommend the four volumes in the series by Michael Mann Sources of Social Power, this would be heavy reading for most people, but grounded in a rigorous theory that presents Politics, Economics, the Military and Ideology as the four foundations of social power that sustain the state (or contribute to its success, failure, stasis, etc).

Violence is central to all of these issues, though not its sole determining factor. Modern Britain would not exist without the near permanent wars of the Plantagenets which shredded both the peasantry and a fair chunk of landed aristocrats before the civil war wiped out even more, and that in both cases includes the wars in Wales and Ireland. Moore is particularly good on the US Civil War as a crucial stepping stone to a more inclusive capitalist economy across the USA, but at the expense of Black Americans who, initially freed from slavery and brought into the public domain as equal citizens, were then, in the South, relegated back to the margins through segregation and the same voter suppression we see today.

Korea was radically changed by its war, and I therefore wonder if the South also developed more rapidly than the North because its social composition was changed, and it thus became easier to create a successful capitalist economy without social resistance, as was the case with Germany's revivals after 1918 and 1945. In all these cases, the flourishing of civil society seems to me to be key to the success of inclusion, its absence the basis of dictatorship.

Jared Diamond's review here-
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/07/what-makes-countries-rich-or-poor/

Moore here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrington_Moore_Jr.

Migdal here-
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Strong-Societies-Weak-States-State-Society/dp/0691010730

Mann here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Mann_(sociologist)

[Stavros]

Although the events that took place in South Korea and the DMZ were broadcast live to most of the world (but not in North Korea where the visit of its leader to the South was not officially reported, I don't know if it has since the visit ended) have given people a great sense of optimism for a more peaceful future on the peninsula, the two sides have been close to this position before so it is too early to say if the next steps will be as positive as the ones taken already.

There is little doubt that China has played a key role in this manoeuvre, as it was China that requested Kim Jong-un visit Beijing and events have moved quickly since his visit. We don't know what they discussed, but the reluctance of China to continue bailing out the North Korea economy may be one, while it seems to some that for his part Kim may be trying to edge North Korea away from China, though the two states retain the military pact that was the basis of China's participation in the War in 1950-53. It is even conceivable that China advised Kim to seek a 'peace' with South Korea in order to obtain substantial economic aid in return, thus protecting China's position without incurring extra costs.

The USA appears to have fallen on its knees in a desperate attempt to court the leader of North Korea, a shocking collapse, not least because in the recent past the President of the USA threatened to destroy the country, and a surprising move given that the President of the USA has now said he is willing to meet the leader of a country the USA does not recognise exists. Perhaps someone forgot to tell the President, or maybe they did but he didn't understand. It remains to be seen how Congress will advise the President on the next steps, but it is complicated by the conditions of the armistice that was signed in 1953.

To begin with, the armistice was only signed by three of the parties to the war: China, North Korea and the United Nations. South Korea did not sign the armistice, so one must assume that before any talks begin on a peace treaty, the two Koreas will first have to end their state of war through a North-South Armistice. Only then can talks on a peace treaty begin.

Also, while it appears that the USA would be party to any talks leading to a peace treaty, again this could only happen if the USA were to give North Korea diplomatic recognition, which may be the decision of Congress rather than the President, while the question of who represents the United Nations Command may lead to the answer: not necessarily an American, as the Command was established by the General Assembly of the UN through its Uniting for Peace resolution in 1950. Nevertheless the USA has a military pact with South Korea similar to the one that China has with North Korea, but the final constitution of any parties to the peace talks is thus not absolutely clear though one might expect a citizen of the USA to be involved.

Some interesting articles here-
https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/a-peace-regime-on-the-korean-peninsula-not-so-fast/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-25/north-korea-talks-will-they-help-or-hinder-china/9687834

https://www.38north.org/2017/09/ibchun091217/

[sukumvit boy]

Trump calls Kim a "very honorable " man ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/25/trump-now-calls-north-koreas-kim-very-honorable-lets-not-forget-whom-hes-talking-about/?utm_term=.c07a37b51359

[Stavros]

Compare 'honourable man' to Mrs Thatcher's assessment of Gorbachev-

John Cole
Prime Minister, after meeting Mr. Gorbachev, are you more or less optimistic about detente and world peace in 1985?

Prime Minister
I am cautiously optimistic. I like Mr. Gorbachev. We can do business together. We both believe in our own political systems. He firmly believes in his; I firmly believe in mine. We are never going to change one another. So that is not in doubt, but we have two great interests in common: that we should both do everything we can to see that war never starts again, and therefore we go into the disarmament talks determined to make them succeed. And secondly, I think we both believe that they are the more likely to succeed if we can build up confidence in one another and trust in one another about each other's approach, and therefore, we believe in cooperating on trade matters, on cultural matters, on quite a lot of contacts between politicians from the two sides of the divide.
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105592

[Stavros]

I don't know if anyone is truly surprised by the decision of the President to call off the meeting in Singapore with Kim Jong Un, but it does expose yet again the incompetence at the heart of US government, and it is the incompetence that doesn't surprise. It is possible that behind all this there is a cunning strategy, to force North Korea into re-thinking its stance by begging the question: how badly do you want American investment in your economy in exchange for 'de-nuclearisation'? on the basis that the North Koreans are actually so desperate they will concede. But what this amounts to, as is evident in the letter the President dictated (mistakes in grammar suggest his aides were too scared to point them out), is that the President thinks threats and confrontation are the means to an end, something John Bolton would approve of, but which may have the opposite effect with North Korea, as is also the case with Iran.

Behind this incompetence is the glaring fact that the US has built up a deep understanding of Korean history and politics, that it has had experts situated in Korea, China and Japan all of whom are or were in a position to offer advice of the kind previous Presidents have relied on which always urge caution, and the 'long game' with regard to confidence building measures and detailed negotiations. The President has dismissed this as a failed strategy, but as Rex Tillerson shredded the State Department of its expertise and long-established specialists quit anyway, the US has now been placed in the situation where the North Koreans look like the party in control while the Americans are losers with only the threat of nuclear annihilation as their 'Plan B'.

Kim and his Generals have demolished a missile site that was probably defunct anyway; they released three Korean-American Prisoners; there was an 'historic' meeting with President Moon; Kim, who had never been went to China, twice; they had talks with Mike Pompeo not once but twice, and their version of de-nuclearisation does not mean as John Bolton suggested/demanded, dismantling all the equipment they have and shipping it to the USA -can you imagine Reagan and Gorbachev agreeing to send each other their missiles to prove they were disarming, or the Provisional IRA handing over its weapons to the British government as part of the 'de-commissioning' of weapons included in the Good Friday Agreement? Not only was this typical of John Bolton, by undermining Mike Pompe it exposed the level of incompetence across the US government with 'Dummy' Mike Pence adding his own threats which amounted to a simple proposition, re-iterated in the President's letter: do as we say, or die! These people don't even talk to each other, how can they talk to North Korea?

If that was not insult enough, the mere fact that the US President made his declaration without bothering to inform President Moon in advance proves that if there is a 'dummy' in all this, he sits in the White House. In theory, Moon and Kim could just ignore the US President and negotiate their own peace treaty and sign it without the presence of the USA, whereas the US commitment to South Korea's security would be required because, in spite of the concessions they have made, North Korea cannot be trusted. The dilemma places the long-term future back where it was before, no advance as long as the parties are lumbered with a quartet of dummies in Washington DC.

Finally this: the foreign policy position of the USA with regard to North Korea is not based on diplomacy of the kind that takes a year or more of detailed negotiations to prepare for a summit before it happens, so the parties can produce a reasonable document, because other than Pompeo's talks with Kim, there was no diplomacy, because the US President doesn't believe in it. Here he is, explaining how the Foreign Policy of the USA is now formulated:

“I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things,” he told MSNBC (https://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-foreign-policy-adviser-220853), when asked who his foreign policy advisers were. He said he was talking to a lot of people, but they weren’t really important. “My primary consultant is myself and I have a good instinct for this stuff.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/24/north-korea-trump-homework

Current state of play:
North Korea 1, USA 0.

[filghy2]

No summit, but you can buy the coin commemorating it, and it seems to be popular. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44247174

[bluesoul]

yesterday's copy of the ny post was a great exercise in what some people like to call "journalism"

https://i.imgur.com/dHKammB.png

[bluesoul]

https://i.imgur.com/dHKammB.png

[Stavros]

The reaction so far to the meeting on Sentosa Island has been to speculate that this is either the beginning of a more meaningful process than has happened in the past, or could just become another agreement with North Korea that does not deliver -here is a summary of the Sentosa Agreement:

1. The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
2. The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
3. Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work towards complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
4. The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2018/jun/12/trump-kim-summit-meeting-singapore-us-president-north-korea-kim-jong-un-

However, seasoned analysts point out that agreements related to North Korea's nuclear programme have been signed since the 1990s but not delivered. The previous agreements can be found here-
https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1205354/denuclearization-of-the-korean-peninsula-reviewing-the-precedents/

Again:
The pledges were vaguely-worded and did not represent an advance on similar agreements between their two countries over past decades.
“President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong-un (https://www.theguardian.com/world/kim-jong-un) reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
Previous agreements in 1994 and 2005 contained very similar promises, but they broke down over difference of interpretation, and spats over verification.
Moreover, there is a gulf between the two sides idea of what denuclearisation will meet. The US is pushing for complete North Korean nuclear disarmament as quickly as possible. Pyongyang wants an open-ended process of negotiation in which it is treated as an equal. (Julian Borger in the Guardian link above).

So far the main difference is that the two leaders have met in person, and that's about it. All the talk about change, the positive words, the invitations are really just that, the devil is in the detail and in particular the extent to which North Korea will either halt, or slow down its nuclear programme, whether it will 'surrender' the war-heads and missiles it has, and whether or not it will allow IAEA inspectors into the country to verify any deals that is signed. In other words, the USA has barely inched toward the kind of deal that was signed with Iran, so why is this 'deal' so much better when it contains so little?

Not up for discussion is the Human Rights of North Koreans, because as we now know, the USA does not believe in Human Rights, least of all for its own citizens.

I assume now, that Congress will be asked to recognise North Korea as a separate state, but that raises all sorts of questions about the Korean War, what a peace treaty will contain, and if it means that there will not only now be two Koreas, but that neither will lay claim to the other, which in turn suggests that 're-unification' is off the table for another generation.

This, so far, has been a major victory for North Korea as the broken-backed, craven, duplicitous USA falls to its knees to beg North Korea to give it some boots to lick, preferably boots coated with the blood of murdered Koreans who dared defy dictatorship in the cause of freedom. There is noting in this agreement that gives the USA anything other than the dead bodies of fallen soldiers and promises that can be broken anytime. In fact, the whole momentum of this process is now with Kim Jong-un who is in the driving seat. The financial dimension of any new relationship with North Korea has yet to be exposed to view, as are the so-called 'security guarantees' that are in the 'new relationship', something that will interest China and Russia.

One hopes that there will be significant moves to reconcile North and South Korea, as that must be the priority in any peace treaty, but so far, this has been a triumph for one of the most violent and brutal dictatorships in the world with little to offer the free world other than nice words.

[Stavros]

An additional thought: in 1961 China and North Korea signed a bi-lateral defence treaty which contains this clause:

The Contracting Parties undertake jointly to adopt all measures to prevent aggression against either of the Contracting Parties by any state. In the event of one of the Contracting Parties being subjected to the armed attack by any state or several states jointly and thus being involved in a state of war, the other Contracting Party shall immediately render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal.
https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/china-and-north-korea-have-a-mutual-defense-treaty-but-when-would-it-apply/

It is not clear at the moment if a 'security guarantee' reached with the USA will be an addition to the one with China or if North Korea will seek to annul the 1961 agreement. An important interpretation of the agreement conceded that it did not mean China would defend North Korea if North Korea was responsible for any 'first strike', but the issue might relate more to the status of nuclear weapons as North Korea and the USA move to the next stage, to put words on paper that mean something. For example, North Korea could 'surrender' all of its nuclear capability, but still rely on China for nuclear defence, to the extent that North Korea could claim it has removed its nuclear weapons but invite China to park its on North Korean soil. In any case, while this might also mean the US military agreeing not to place nuclear missiles on South Korean territory, China, Russia and the USA all have nuclear submarines in the East Asia region that can fire missiles from international waters, so the nuclear threat may be removed from the Peninsula, but remains miles from it.

Either way, China's reaction to the defence implications will be interesting to read when it is made.

[sukumvit boy]

Well there he goes again.More Kim Jong Un executions...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/world/asia/Kim-Yong-chol-execution-north-korea.html

[sukumvit boy]

"Hey, I'm starving (literally) how about some Hot Dogs (literally)"
North Korea is going through some RUFF times so the Sublime Leader is putting the family dog on the menu.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8634831/North-Koreans-ordered-hand-pet-dogs-killed-meat-country-hit-food-shortages.html

[Stavros]

Oh dear, as on my travels I have see a noodle bar called Wufon, as in Wuf! Wuf! Other bars are available -so if I am there, I will choose one of the others. Just to be on the safe side!

[sukumvit boy]

Leadership shifts to Kim's sister as Supreme Leader in coma for "months".
https://nypost.com/2020/08/24/kim-jong-un-reportedly-in-a-coma-for-months-recent-appearances-faked/

[sukumvit boy]

Kim's sister Kim Yo-jong( aka Cruella) disappears from public view which may signal a power struggle . Cruella already started saber rattling a few weeks ago referring to South Korea as "the enemy". May the world hope that a more moderate leadership might appear and topple the Kim dynasty?

[Stavros]

The consensus appears to be that succession will either be orderly or disorderly, as nobody believes KJO designated a successor and his children are too young. The ideology that insists leaders trace their origins to the Mountain in some sort of spiritual bond that confers eternal status on Kim il-Sung, may not amount to a national ideology, so the arguments revolve around the existing mechanism for maintaining Worker's Party of Korea rule. So here are two links-

This to me seems the most rational, as it posits the hypothesis that North Korea need not base its leadership solely on one family, and that the next leader is most likely to be a Party man as KJu rebalanced power in NK toward the party and away frrom the military, though the candidate if he is serious about long term power must re-forge some links with the military, as both organizations benefit most from power. So, rejecting KJu's sister:

"A better bet is Choe Ryong Hae, the head of the Supreme People’s Assembly and thus nominal head of state. He is the unofficial No. 2 and apparently trusted by Kim Jong Un. He is older, has broad experience, and is well tested in politics at the top. He also benefits from Kim’s institutional rebalancing, shifting authority back from the military, which was favored by his father, to the party. Reportedly, Choe was active in asserting party control over the armed forces, which may well oppose him for this reason."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/29/north-korea-kim-jong-un-family-succession-death/

The more pessimistic view, co-written by veteran American Korea analyst Victor Cha, consider the dilemma of collapse/chaos, and argues that a balancing act will be required between South Korea and its allies, mainly the US, and China, with the key issues being border control, the capture of NK's nuclear arsenal, and the maintenance of public order inside North Korea. Given the current doubts about the competence of the USA and its disputes with China, even though most of it is waffle, at this moment the last thing anyone needs is chaos, not least as Putin appears to be giving 'security guarantees' to Lukashenko in Belarus, perhaps as a warning to the democracy movement there that Russia won't allow it. Under Xi, I would expect China to take a more aggressive stance to effectively 'warn off' South Korea and its American ally from interfering in North Korea.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2020-05-14/after-kim-jong-un

[sukumvit boy]

The consensus appears to be that succession will either be orderly or disorderly, as nobody believes KJO designated a successor and his children are too young. The ideology that insists leaders trace their origins to the Mountain in some sort of spiritual bond that confers eternal status on Kim il-Sung, may not amount to a national ideology, so the arguments revolve around the existing mechanism for maintaining Worker's Party of Korea rule. So here are two links-

This to me seems the most rational, as it posits the hypothesis that North Korea need not base its leadership solely on one family, and that the next leader is most likely to be a Party man as KJu rebalanced power in NK toward the party and away frrom the military, though the candidate if he is serious about long term power must re-forge some links with the military, as both organizations benefit most from power. So, rejecting KJu's sister:

"A better bet is Choe Ryong Hae, the head of the Supreme People’s Assembly and thus nominal head of state. He is the unofficial No. 2 and apparently trusted by Kim Jong Un. He is older, has broad experience, and is well tested in politics at the top. He also benefits from Kim’s institutional rebalancing, shifting authority back from the military, which was favored by his father, to the party. Reportedly, Choe was active in asserting party control over the armed forces, which may well oppose him for this reason."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/29/north-korea-kim-jong-un-family-succession-death/

The more pessimistic view, co-written by veteran American Korea analyst Victor Cha, consider the dilemma of collapse/chaos, and argues that a balancing act will be required between South Korea and its allies, mainly the US, and China, with the key issues being border control, the capture of NK's nuclear arsenal, and the maintenance of public order inside North Korea. Given the current doubts about the competence of the USA and its disputes with China, even though most of it is waffle, at this moment the last thing anyone needs is chaos, not least as Putin appears to be giving 'security guarantees' to Lukashenko in Belarus, perhaps as a warning to the democracy movement there that Russia won't allow it. Under Xi, I would expect China to take a more aggressive stance to effectively 'warn off' South Korea and its American ally from interfering in North Korea.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2020-05-14/after-kim-jong-un
Interesting ,in depth articles. Thanks.