Korean Peninsula Developments

[barney41]

KJU is playing the 'one-upmanship' game IMO. By acting all rational and reasonable, Trump may be pressured to try and outdo him with some impulsive, grand gesture when they meet face to face. All the staff work and strategies leading up to the meeting may not matter with an erratic POTUS. I'm thinking KJU plays him.

 

[ngatimozart]

Denuclearisation? does that mean that South Korea has to denounce the American nuclear umbrella and all foreign troops removed from the South. that would also work two way's the North would have to denounce China as well.




that's an interesting one South Korea problem is not just the North, I wonder what south Korean disarmament means to the North?

Denuclearisation apparently is a term that hasn't yet been fully defined. My feeling is that it's definition depends upon who the writer is.

 

[ngatimozart]

KJU is playing the 'one-upmanship' game IMO. By acting all rational and reasonable, Trump may be pressured to try and outdo him with some impulsive, grand gesture when they meet face to face. All the staff work and strategies leading up to the meeting may not matter with an erratic POTUS. I'm thinking KJU plays him.

Of course KJU is. Methinks he has POTUS sussed out pretty good. You can say a lot of things about KJU, but one is clear and that he appears to be very disciplined.

 

[John Fedup]

Of course KJU is. Methinks he has POTUS sussed out pretty good. You can say a lot of things about KJU, but one is clear and that he appears to be very disciplined.

Poor General Kelly wishes he could have a disciplined POTUS. I guess expectations are low based on the probable personal interactions between these two let alone the difficult policy differences.

 

[STURM]

The North Koreans will be watching closely to what Trump does with Iran. The U.S. pulling out of the Iranian deal [the IAEA insists the Iranians are keeping up their end of the bargain] will lead to the North Koreans questioning whether Trump will keep his work with any deal he makes with them. With regards to denuclearisation; does this mean that the North Koreans will not be permitted to retain any nuclear facilities for non military purposes? With the Iranians, under the deal signed in 2015; they're allowed to retain nuclear facilities for non military purposes.

Another question that remains to be seen is whether Trump will try to get the North Koreans to give up their missiles; irrespective of whether armed with nukes or not. This will be the same situation faced with Iran; the Iranians pointing out that missiles were not part of the nuclear deal and are not ICBMs.

Irrespective of what happens; the 2 Koreas meeting is good; irrespective of what outside powers might think. All sides; including the U.S, will ultimately have to make certain compromises. To expect North Korea to give up its nukes and to better behave; only to receive an end in sanctions and economic aid is gaga land thinking. They'll also want certain reassurances. China will have to be heavily involved to ensure North Korea does what it promises. The question is who will ensure that others do what they promise?

[The Iran Crisis Presents A Bigger Danger To Peace Than North Korea]
tps://www.independent.co.uk/voices/iran-nuclear-deal-north-korea-donald-trump-emmanuel-macron-a8326146.html

''The Iran crisis is truly dangerous in a way that was never quite true of the North Korea crisis. In Korea, we are talking of a peace agreement that would replace the Panmunjom Armistice of 1953, but there has been no war going on there for 65 years, though there have been a few sporadic clashes. Compare this with the position of Iran which is a rival for influence with the US in a ferocious war in Syria and one that in Iraq that is currently receding, but could easily blaze up again.''

''Short of diplomatic options, the White House might view military action against Iran as an increasingly attractive approach. The Iran and North Korea crises are very different but in both cases Trump is behaving as if the US is turning into a stronger power when, thanks to his leadership, it is becoming a weaker one.''

 

[barney41]

KJU now threatens to scuttle the summit over US/SK military exercises and Trump is is a bind. NK played nice initially knowing Trump would seize on the opportunity for self-aggrandizement, even fanning talk of a future Nobel Prize.

NK is betting Trump will be too embarrassed to backtrack and play hardball. So they're giving in a slight tug on the line and if Trump does not respond forcefully KJU knows he's got his fish hooked. lol

 

[ngatimozart]

A kiwi TV current affairs program shot in North Korea. It is about migratory birds but does show a bit about North Korea.

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/sunday/episodes/s2018-e12

 

[t68]

Two Koreas meet again as Trump revives summit hopes

looks like the talks may happen after all, apparently the US is still sending an advance team

 

[ngatimozart]

Full text of Kim / Trump agreement dated 12/6/2018:

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.

President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

Convinced that the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:


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.

Having acknowledged that the U.S.-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance and overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit.

President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new U.S.-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.


June 12, 2018

Sentosa Island

Singapore

Source Reuters: Trump and Kim's joint statement

 

[t68]

Its a wonder that the Chairman didn't release the USS Pueblo and all foreign Nationals in detention as an act of goodwill.

 

[King Wally]

I think given the circumstances this is probably the best possible outcome out of this meeting. It never really was going to end up more detailed than a statement of intent and it appears that has been achieved.

Fingers crossed the next year ahead can see the follow through of a more detailed action plan.

 

[MrConservative]

I think given the circumstances this is probably the best possible outcome out of this meeting. It never really was going to end up more detailed than a statement of intent and it appears that has been achieved.

Fingers crossed the next year ahead can see the follow through of a more detailed action plan.

Indeed!

I actually think young Mr Kim is not a total nutcase and has some exposure to the West when he was a teenager at a Swiss boarding school.

In some respects he has had to over the last 5 years consolidate his power base at home and do a bit of "purging" of internal threats and enemies as one piece of the chessboard (Three more Generals sacked last week), whilst also working towards getting a nuclear capability as another chess piece in which he can then negotiate for economic and diplomatic security guarantees.

The economic and diplomatic security guarantees with the outside world are longer term a better bet for his regime and personal survival than a small nuclear arsenal and a soviet cold war tech level military. A bit more Disney and a lot less Misery for his people might do the trick.

The real amusing thing for me yesterday was when he checked out The Beast Presidential Cadillac Limo. A lot more dictator cache than the stretched S Class he showed up in. Trump should send Dennis Rodman and Kim Kardashian over to Pongyang and present him with one as a goodwill gesture.

 

[ngatimozart]

In some respects he has had to over the last 5 years consolidate his power base at home and do a bit of "purging" of internal threats and enemies as one piece of the chessboard (Three more Generals sacked last week), whilst also working towards getting a nuclear capability as another chess piece in which he can then negotiate for economic and diplomatic security guarantees.

Yes he would of had to have a clean out in order to get his own people in position. I wonder if it's the diehard traditionalists that have met with the executioner and KJU is intending to steer a different course with “Songun Chongch’i” or military-first policies being sidelined. That would upset a few generals and his purges are a methodology for reducing military and party opposition to a new course.

 

[ngatimozart]

This article discusses the processes for the dismantling of the NK nuclear capability. It is an interesting and informative read.

Dismantling Pyongyang's weapons relies heavily on US

 

[OPSSG]

While the headline is South Korea plans to spend more money on boosting its missile defense shield in response to North Korea’s evolving missile capability (the Ministry of National Defense announced 15 Aug. 2019), IMO there is more to this story (see: South Korea moves to kick its missile defense shield up a notch). Robert Kelly explains Korean domestic politics to enable us to better understand, why these tensions exist.

To be more successful at hedging, increasing the annual defense budget by 7 percent over the 2020-2024 period, makes sense, for a leftist Korean president, especially the attempt to develop local systems. As Robert Kelly notes, if South Korea wants a breach with Japan, and a slide into a cold war over Dokdo/Takeshima, Sea of Japan/East Sea, comfort women, labor reparations, and so on, then they’ll get it this time. This time we will learn just how far the South Korean left is willing to go on Japan, because the traditional brakes, provided by the Korean conservatives or the US, is not there any more.

• “Under previous U.S. administrations of whatever political stripe, the credibility of the U.S. commitment—and vigorous arm-twisting when required—tended to keep Japan-South Korean spats within bounds,” said Stewart Patrick of the Council on Foreign Relations. “Trump’s periodic questioning of the U.S. strategic posture and his general unpredictability have increased hedging behavior.” Minus a strong U.S. presence, Japan is acting more aggressively than it has in many decades. Earlier this month, Tokyo abruptly removed most-favored-nation status from Seoul over lingering issues dating from Japan’s forced-labor and forced-prostitution practices during the war, after a South Korean court ordered that Japanese firms must compensate wartime victims.

• The other traditional constraint on deterioration is the presence of conservatives and national security hawks in South Korea’s government. The South Korean right has long shared a basic hawkish alignment preference for the US and Japan, in opposition to North Korea, the Soviet Union in the past, and China today. In a curious reversal of traditional left-right political patterns, the South Korean right is the ‘internationalist’ bloc, while the South Korean left is the nationalist one. It is the South Korean left, for example, which has emphasized the common ‘Koreanness’ between North and South Korea and has sought various breakthroughs with Pyongyang over the decades. Conversely, it is the South Korean right which has emphasized an international ideological alignment of South Korea with other liberal, democratic and anti-communist states, most obviously the US and Japan.
  
  
• The South Korean left rejects this outreach and emphasizes, often with great militancy, Japan’s need to apologize continuously. The current leftist president has abandoned Park’s comfort women deal and has made no effort to head off the emerging legal battle of reparatory confiscations of Japanese corporate assets. The South Korean right has been left carping on the sidelines.

• In mid-Aug 2019 President Trump said in a tweet that "South Korea has agreed to pay substantially more money to the United States in order to defend itself from North Korea," in an apparent move to mount the pressure on Seoul ahead of the cost sharing negotiations set to kick off in the near future. Larry Niksch has an in depth article on considerations and background of US troop withdrawals from Korea. He noted that the US Congress has also recently stepped directly into the issue of U.S. troop levels in South Korea. Section 1264 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 states that none of the funding it authorizes may be used to reduce the number of U.S. troops in South Korea below 22,000 unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to congressional defense committees that:
  
  (1) a reduction is in the U.S. national security interest and “will not significantly undermine the security of United States allies in the region”; and
  
  (2) the Secretary of Defense has consulted with U.S. allies, including South Korea and Japan, regarding such a reduction in the troop level.
  
  Additionally, Section 1265 of the NDAA specifies that the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to Congressional defense committees regular reports and updates on the scale and operational status of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs. These reports, in effect, would require additional justification for a U.S. troop withdrawal below 22,000.

• The NDAA’s prohibition of appropriated funds for removing troops from South Korea below a specified level is a powerful tool for opponents of a potential U.S. troop withdrawal. Any sizeable withdrawal of troops from South Korea would be hugely expensive, probably costing several billion dollars. The infrastructure, equipment, and weaponry of the 70-year American military presence in South Korea is vast. Some of this could be left with the South Koreans, but much of it would have to be removed and brought back to the United States or to U.S. bases in other countries. Without specific money appropriated for this purpose, the U.S. military could not do it. The FY2019 NDAA covers only one fiscal year. A sustained congressional cutoff of funds, covering several years with similar provisions to the current NDAA, would send the strongest possible message to the President of the depth of congressional opposition. It probably would increase outright opposition to withdrawals in the U.S. military and within civilian national security officials. The news media would give it high attention.

 

[John Fedup]

Can’t remember where but I read an article suggesting Japan may restrict certain critical materials to the large Korean conglomerates which may cause them in turn to put pressure on Korean pollies to back off on their anti-Japan stance. With Trump ignoring this deterioration and Abe’s patience gone, this is stuff that isn’t needed as the Chinese threat increases.

 

[OPSSG]

Can’t remember where but I read an article suggesting Japan may restrict certain critical materials to the large Korean conglomerates which may cause them in turn to put pressure on Korean pollies to back off on their anti-Japan stance. With Trump ignoring this deterioration and Abe’s patience gone, this is stuff that isn’t needed as the Chinese threat increases.

Last month, Japan announced it would tighten control over three chemicals — fluorinated polyamides, photoresists, and hydrogen fluoride — that are crucial to producing semiconductors in Korea. Under new regulations, Japanese companies would need a license for each chemical to import them to South Korea, and the process could take up to 90 days. Tokyo imposed restrictions on exports crucial to tech giants such as Samsung following a series of South Korean court rulings ordering Japanese firms to pay for wartime labour. Then on 1 August 2019, Japan removed Seoul from its “white list,” the first time a country has been removed from Tokyo’s list of trade partners with minimum export regulations. Two weeks later, South Korea returned fire by announcing it would remove Japan from its own white list. The damage caused by this mini trade war could prove dangerous for the global economy, but national security experts are also nervously eyeing a statement from South Korean officials that it might next tear up a key intelligence sharing agreement known as the General Security of Military Information Agreement, or GSOMIA.

IMO, Japanese actions are using a calibrated response, which is designed to cause concern to Korea but not seriously harm relations. Rather, there have also been concerns that the Korean government's nationalistic calls for unity were allowing public anger toward Japan to reach dangerous levels. Thousands of Koreans expected join anti-Japan protests planned today, including an evening candlelit vigil near Seoul's presidential palace — which is an over-reaction. Thousands of protesters dressed in raincoats marched in heavy rain toward the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. They carried signs that said "Apologize for War Crimes" and "Compensate Forced Laborers." In a sign of weakness, Moon signals willingness to hold talks with Japan as trade war simmers. Not sure if Abe will see this move by Moon as an off ramp — as the leftists in Korea see Japan as a bigger threat than North Korea or China. Whereas Japan does not see S. Korea as a threat at all. See: South Korea's Moon signals talks with Japan as trade war simmers. South Korea's leftist President Moon needs to be taught a lesson by Japan’s Abe — to help S. Koreans mature as a country — to know that their actions have consequences.

 

[Feanor]

Last month, Japan announced it would tighten control over three chemicals — fluorinated polyamides, photoresists, and hydrogen fluoride — that are crucial to producing semiconductors in Korea. Under new regulations, Japanese companies would need a license for each chemical to import them to South Korea, and the process could take up to 90 days. Tokyo imposed restrictions on exports crucial to tech giants such as Samsung following a series of South Korean court rulings ordering Japanese firms to pay for wartime labour. Then on 1 August 2019, Japan removed Seoul from its “white list,” the first time a country has been removed from Tokyo’s list of trade partners with minimum export regulations. Two weeks later, South Korea returned fire by announcing it would remove Japan from its own white list. The damage caused by this mini trade war could prove dangerous for the global economy, but national security experts are also nervously eyeing a statement from South Korean officials that it might next tear up a key intelligence sharing agreement known as the General Security of Military Information Agreement, or GSOMIA.

IMO, Japanese actions are a calibrated response, which is designed to cause concern to Korea but not seriously harm relations. Rather, there have also been concerns that the Korean government's nationalistic calls for unity were allowing public anger toward Japan to reach dangerous levels. Thousands of Koreans expected join anti-Japan protests planned today, including an evening candlelit vigil near Seoul's presidential palace — which is an over-reaction. Thousands of protesters dressed in raincoats marched in heavy rain toward the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. They carried signs that said "Apologize for War Crimes" and "Compensate Forced Laborers." In a sign of weakness, Moon signals willingness to hold talks with Japan as trade war simmers. Not sure if Abe will see this move by Moon as an off ramp — as the leftists in Korea see Japan (whereas Japan does not see S. Korea as a threat at all) as a bigger threat than North Korea or China. See: South Korea's Moon signals talks with Japan as trade war simmers. South Korea's leftist President Moon needs to be taught a lesson by Japan’s Abe — to help S. Koreans mature as a country — to know that their actions have consequences.

The issues raised over compensation from the Japanese occupation have some merit, and there is a court ruling to back them up. Without getting too deep into the politics of it, I'm not sure that "teaching South Korea a lesson" is the right way to go here. With tensions between the US and China, and the US and Russia, a SK-Japanese diplomatic and economic conflict is not good for the region. And this ties in rather unfortunately with the territorial dispute between SK and Japan as well, so in my opinion the faster they can resolve this issue, the better for everyone involved.

 

[OPSSG]

While I recognise and have sympathy for past wrongs inflicted on the Koreans (by Japan during WWII), the current round of tension is instigated by the left in Korea (aka Moon’s choice and staged for a political purpose, rather than a real concern for victims). The Korean left think war with Japan is preferable to fighting the North Koreans. In contrast, the Japanese have no desire or intention to fight the South Koreans (if you read the Japanese position in their white papers) — further in any war on the Korean peninsular, the American bases in Japan will be used to stage supplies (aka function as ally).

The issues raised over compensation from the Japanese occupation have some merit, and there is a court ruling to back them up. Without getting too deep into the politics of it, I'm not sure that "teaching South Korea a lesson" is the right way to go here. With tensions between the US and China, and the US and Russia, a SK-Japanese diplomatic and economic conflict is not good for the region.

Robert Kelly speaks on your point in his post. Feel free to read his point of view — link was also previously provided 2 posts up. You don’t have to agree with it but you should know that the current Korean Government made a choice. Unlike President Moon, former President Park, for example, sought to put to rest the comfort women dispute with a deal several years ago, the South Korean left under Moon rejects this outreach and emphasizes, often with great militancy, Japan’s need to apologize continuously. The current leftist president has abandoned Park’s comfort women deal and has made no effort to head off the emerging legal battle.

And this ties in rather unfortunately with the territorial dispute between SK and Japan as well, so in my opinion the faster they can resolve this issue, the better for everyone involved.

I agree that faster is better but it’s not going to occur unless the left in Korea is willing to meet Japan in the middle. The Koreans need to learn a lesson, if there is to be a final settlement — keeping in mind that the Koreans do not want to accept Park’s agreement with Japan anymore because it suits Moon.

 

[Feanor]

While I recognise and have sympathy for past wrongs inflicted on the Koreans (by Japan), the current round of tension is instigated by the left in Korea (aka Moon’s choice and staged for a political purpose, rather than a real concern for victims). The Korean left think war with Japan is preferable to fighting the North Koreans. In contrast, the Japanese have no desire or intention to fight the South Koreans (if you read the Japanese position in their white papers) — further in any war on the Korean peninsular, the Japan will be used to stage supplies (aka function as ally).

I suspect that a war with Japan is indeed preferable to a war with the DPRK. After all the DPRK has a giant military, with nuclear, and chemical, and biological weapons. The damage would be considerable, followed by the massive problem of what to do with a defeated North Korean population, mountains of uncontrolled weapons, and the inevitable lash-back from the younger generation of North Koreans. A small war with Japan on the other hand, while less winnable (in my opinion at least) would certainly come with far lower costs. I think in terms of objective consequences a defeat from Japan is potentially preferable to a victory over North Korea. All of that having been said, are there any indications that SK is actually prepared to go to war with Japan?

Robert Kelly speaks on your point in his post. Feel free to read his point of view — link was also previously provided 2 posts up. You don’t have to agree with it but you should know that the current Korean Government made a choice. Unlike President Moon, former President Park, for example, sought to put to rest the comfort women dispute with a deal several years ago. The South Korean left under Moon rejects this outreach and emphasizes, often with great militancy, Japan’s need to apologize continuously. The current leftist president has abandoned Park’s comfort women deal and has made no effort to head off the emerging legal battle.

I think the second comment to the article in the link provided is very insightful. While I don't know much about this issue I'm reluctant to take a single view point as necessarily "correct" without additional context, and it certainly wouldn't surprise me if a right-wing politician's idea of "putting to rest" the issue consists of essentially burying the legitimate claims that do exist in the name of economic expediency. There is a far bigger trend of countries seeking to re-write the history on WWII, including many European nations, and consequently the increased insistence of others on maintaining the emphasis of the wrong-ness of certain actions and certain parties. So I wouldn't be surprised if that plays its role here, especially as Japan is slowly moving away from its own originally highly pacifist foreign policy.

I think that there are also a few other things to consider. If we value an independent judiciary, then should the president really be interfering or "heading off" legal battles? And if he does "head off" the battle, and shut down the claim, where does it leave those parts of the public who supported it? Essentially ignored? I think letting the legal battle play out, and allowing the outcome to fall where it may is mark of a true separation of powers between an executive acting as an executive rather then as a politician, though where such principled action is advisable here... well as I said, both sides should want this over and quick.

I agree that faster is better but it’s not going to occur unless the left in Korea is willing to meet Japan in the middle.

If Japan in principle owes reparations and refuses to acknowledge them, despite Japanese companies doing business in SK and therefore being subject to their legislation and court rulings, what exactly is the middle ground here? "Heading off" the legal battle, and ignoring the victim's asking for compensation? That hardly strikes me as a middle ground. So while compromise (in my opinion) is the reasonable option, and I do agree with you that if SK is to get any remotely satisfactory resolution here, they will have to compromise, my question is - what is Japan willing to compromise on? Especially considering that 1) Japan is bigger politically, economically, and militarily, 2) Japan has so far refused to pay these reparations and ignored the court ruling.

I think we will see more in the upcoming talks, and I don't think simply blaming the SK "leftists" for this crisis is entirely correct. I think the initial post-war settlement was not particularly fair to many (the powers that be at that time were eager to move past the issue rather then dwell on it but that came at a cost), and I think that right-wingers in both SK and Japan would rather let sleeping dogs lie until all the victims are dead, and the issue is moot, rather than compromise mutually profitable arrangements to reach a better resolution to this conflict that won't give them any benefits, instead being aimed at acknowledging past wrongs and compensating the victims.