Site icon The Punching Bag Post

HORIST: North Korea: On track or off the rails?

<p>President Trump has spoken optimistically about the new relationship with North Korea&rsquo&semi;s Kim Jong-un&period; Trump has switched from bellicosity to flattery in his references to the young dictator&period; On the periphery&comma; some progress has been made&period;&nbsp&semi; There have been no more provocative missiles flying toward Guam or over Japan&period; The remains of many of the MIA American servicemen have been returned&period;&nbsp&semi; Some nuclear support facilities have been dismantled&period;&nbsp&semi;&nbsp&semi;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>As a gesture of good will&comma; Trump has temporarily terminated joint military operations with South Korea and Japan that offended the Kim regime&period; Sanctions that are crippling the North Korean economy remain in place&comma; however&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>Trump&rsquo&semi; approach to negotiate directly as opposed to threatening from afar has been fully embraced by Japan and South Korea&period;&nbsp&semi; It has been supported&comma; accepted or at least not opposed by virtually every nation in the world community in the spirit that it is better to talk than to bomb&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>Also&comma; the bilateral diplomacy between North Korea and the United States is not the only game in town&period;&nbsp&semi; South Korean President Moon Jae-in has his own diplomatic initiative with Kim&period;&nbsp&semi; Developing a positive relationship between north and south may be more important to Kim than any relationship with the United States&period;&nbsp&semi; But they are inextricably tied together&period;&nbsp&semi; It is not possible to have a good relationship between Pyongyang and Seoul if there is a hostile relationship between Pyongyang and Washington&period;&nbsp&semi; Kim well understands that those joint military exercises on his shoreline are between South Korea and America as partners&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>On several occasions&comma; Trump warned the American public that there were no guarantees&period;&nbsp&semi; He laid out his hopes and aspirations and fell back on his oft used conclusion&comma; &ldquo&semi;We&rsquo&semi;ll have to wait and see&period;&rdquo&semi;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>The consistently anti-Trump folks did not like his threatening saber-rattling language&period;&nbsp&semi; They did not like his more complimentary language&period;&nbsp&semi; They did not like his decision to meet with Kim&period;&nbsp&semi; They did not like the results of the meeting&period;&nbsp&semi; And in a partisan acapella of &ldquo&semi;I told you so&comma;&rdquo&semi; they were quick to criticize when it appeared that North Korea was not living up to the words or the spirit of the accord signed in Singapore&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>Trump should not be castigated for taking a different approach than his critics prefer&period; Although they have not advanced any alternatives other than the failed empty-threat approach the past&period;&nbsp&semi; &nbsp&semi;It was the empty lip service threats of the past 40 years that enabled North Korea to become the belligerent and dangerous nuclear nation that it is today&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>Since the Kim family has made promises&comma; signed agreements and took money from a series of U&period;S&period; presidents&comma; only to return to their program of nuclear missile development&comma; it is arguable that the regime sees this as business-as-usual &ndash&semi; just another public relations delaying tactic&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>That is where Kim is making a terrible mistake&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>Trump&comma; unlike his predecessors&comma; will not simply walk away from North Korea&rsquo&semi;s disingenuousness&period;&nbsp&semi; Refusal to denuclearize will bring back the military option and most likely the &ldquo&semi;rocket man&rdquo&semi; appellation&period;&nbsp&semi; The President&rsquo&semi;s strength going into the negotiations was his &ldquo&semi;credible&rdquo&semi; threat of military intervention&period;&nbsp&semi; Implicit in the threat was that the Kim regime would surrender its nuclear arsenal and ambitions or would cease to exist&period;&nbsp&semi; That option is still on the table&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>All of Trump&rsquo&semi;s sweet talk with Kim &&num;8212&semi; that his adversaries hate as much as they hated his tough talk &&num;8212&semi; is highly conditional&period;&nbsp&semi; Should North Korea renege on the Singapore agreement&comma; or even implement it at a snail pace&comma; the language can turn ugly again and those military exercises can be renewed in a heartbeat&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>It also has to be considered that China is playing a role in North Korea&rsquo&semi;s apparent disregard of the agreement&period;&nbsp&semi; They may be trying to improve their hand on the trade issues &ndash&semi; where they are at a disadvantage &ndash&semi; by bringing North Korea into the negotiations indirectly&period;&nbsp&semi; China&comma; along with Russia&comma; has pulled back from some of the sanctions&period;&nbsp&semi; Where they had once supported sanctions by the U&period;N&period;&comma; they have more recently opposed them&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>China&rsquo&semi;s&comma; Russia&rsquo&semi;s and North Korea&rsquo&semi;s miscalculation &ndash&semi; that Trump will not really use military intervention &ndash&semi; could be the most dangerous mistake of all&period;&nbsp&semi; Trump&rsquo&semi;s threat is credible because he most likely means it&period;&nbsp&semi; We should not forget that the threat to use military intervention is not some personal late-night tweet by the President&period;&nbsp&semi; The ability and the possibility of using the United States military has been articulated by National Security Advisor John Bolton&comma; Secretary of State Mike Pompeo&comma; Secretary of Defense James Mattis and U&period;N&period; Ambassador Nikki Haley&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>Cancelling Secretary Pompeo&rsquo&semi;s planned visit to Pyongyang is just the diplomatic version of rapping one&rsquo&semi;s fingers on the table as an expression of impatience&period;&nbsp&semi; More interesting has been North Korea&rsquo&semi;s response&period;&nbsp&semi; Through their propaganda media&comma; they are again warning the people that the United States is preparing to invade&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>It is noteworthy that the provocative warning did not come from Kim or as an official statement of the government&comma; but rather as a bit of propaganda directed mostly at the hometown audience&period;&nbsp&semi; The less likely explanation is that Kim intends to start full-scale testing and believes Trump&rsquo&semi;s threats to a degree &ndash&semi; that he believes an invasion is truly possible&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>On the other hand&comma; all this back and forth could be nothing more than the inscrutable negotiating style of Kim and his team&period;&nbsp&semi; It would not be the first time they fake going to the left before going to the right&period;<&sol;p>&NewLine;<p>We need to view the North Korea thing as a work in progress&period;&nbsp&semi; &nbsp&semi;Much too early to declare winners and losers&period;&nbsp&semi; As Trump would say&comma; &ldquo&semi;We&rsquo&semi;ll have to wait and see&period;&rdquo&semi;<&sol;p>&NewLine;

Exit mobile version