Aren't the agents at fault? I looked through a photo album some years ago of my cousins wearing brown and black shirts and swastika armbands, and know what some of them did 70 years ago.
I work in a situation where I have power over the physical well-being of others (Disability support worker in a home with 5 clients). Lots of people in my industry have abused people like my clients, and maybe even my clients. The abuse ranges from rape and sexual assault to assault and battery to threats to more insidious forms of abuse and manipulation. We are trained in techniques to manage our frustrations, and the chief one is to exit the situation and cool off. It works a treat. If we work in a house where people are violent, we are given ad-hoc training about how to deal with that person. I won't get into more detail but if a support worker abuses a client they are to blame.
The point is that people who abuse others (with the possible exception of manipulative conduct) know they are doing the wrong thing. They pick their targets and they try to cover their tracks. When you punch someone, or deny them food or drink or just fail to treat them with human decency you know what you are doing. People who abuse others in their care are at fault.
If there is not sufficient resources available, then frontline staff are not to blame. That looks like a big issue in the detention centres. It's why I'm ambivalent about the staff of a furniture company supplying the centres striking about it. People need beds and seats.
Trump's fondness for Kim Jong Un is one of the few redeeming features of his presidency. The new rapport between the North Korean and US leaders is very much endorsed by the current government in the ROK, which is centre=left and oriented toward detente.
Personally, my ideal scenario would be Trump and Pence get impeached for whatever can be dug up against them, Pelosi becomes POTUS, and Trump gets sentenced to community-service negotiationg with the DPRK, something he does seem to have a knack for.
IMHO, T sees himself as (emperor : dictator : strong man), so he seeks out leaders of that ilk. And he wants to be first among equals.
I'm not sure that his interventions can be trusted to be good and useful. He's repeatedly *defended* strong man leaders when they were criticized.
With regards to North Korea, I don't think it's a case of "seeking out" strongman dictators, that's just the kind of person who runs that country.
As I said, the government in Seoul is also supportive of outreach to the North. I can assure you that Moon Jae In is not a dictator of any sort. The dictatorship nostalgists are almost all on the Right, the people most hostile to detente.
And, yes, possibly Trump has a personal affinity for strongman dictators. But the purpose of these negotiations isn't to inspire the North Korean government to become more democratic(any liberalization of that country will likely come via Chinese influence), it's to reduce tensions between the US and the DPRK. And, quite frankly, having a president who openly praises the leader of North Korea, and is the first sitting POTUS to meet with said leader and set foot on North Korean soil, is surely at least a step(however tentative) in that direction.
The Hankyoreh is the leading progressive daily in the ROK. Here is a recent editorial, written a couple of days before yesterday's meeting, offering a mostly positive assessment of US-DPRK rleations under Trump.
Thanks Stetson. A lot of the US coverage of the Trump-NK talks is just knee-jerk stuff with little consideration of what the South Koreans have been doing/ thinking. Trump may be an idiot and these talks may go nowhere but we should all hope that they work out.
I remember Tim Shorrock from the Nation talking about his experience at the Singapore summit- the US press corps kept to themselves, didn’t even acknowledge the ROK press and had no interest in what they thought. They had already formulated their narrative among themselves and sought only information that reinforced it.
Thanks Stetson. A lot of the US coverage of the Trump-NK talks is just knee-jerk stuff with little consideration of what the South Koreans have been doing/ thinking. Trump may be an idiot and these talks may go nowhere but we should all hope that they work out.
You're welcome! And I should read into the record that there are certainly right-wing South Koreans as well. Some of them were out in the streets welcoming Trump the other day, probably under the broad analysis of "Republican president = good guy".
But from the conservative media organs, you can see that there is a bit of politely expressed distrust of Trump's dealings with the North Koreans, along the lines of "He might be selling out South Korea's security to the commies."
I remember Tim Shorrock from the Nation talking about his experience at the Singapore summit- the US press corps kept to themselves, didn’t even acknowledge the ROK press and had no interest in what they thought. They had already formulated their narrative among themselves and sought only information that reinforced it.
That wouldn't surprise me at all. I have to roll my eyes when I see even liberal politicians and media wailing about how "Trump is selling out our allies in South Korea!", without apparently even having bothered to check what those allies are thinking at the present time.
I find it impossible to praise the big orange one for talks with Kim
While the border camps are up,
Well, I think there's a useful distinction to be made between praising Trump personally, and saying that the policy he is pursuing in one particular part of the world is the best one for stability in that region.
If I, as a resident of Korea, think that detente with the North is making my current living space a less dangerous place to be, I'm not going to advocate the reversal of that policy, just so I can be on the opposite side of the issue as Trump.
The real problem is that any relationship between North Korea and/or its leader is with Trump, not with the US (except in T's "l'etat c'est moi" mind). No staff, no briefings, no background, no record, no details, no memory, no future (unless T's re-elected, which God forbid.
The real problem is that any relationship between North Korea and/or its leader is with Trump, not with the US (except in T's "l'etat c'est moi" mind). No staff, no briefings, no background, no record, no details, no memory, no future (unless T's re-elected, which God forbid.
Well, what would Trump have to do in order to make this relationship be a relationship with the US as a whole?
Or to phrase my question by way of historical analogy, when Nixon went to China, how was that a China/US relationship, as opposed to a Mao/Nixon relationship?
The most important, substantive thing is really ongoing peace talks between North and South Korea. I think both sides understand that the US is an unstable actor- the best thing is for the US to facilitate those talks or at least get out of the way. Follow the Koreans' lead instead of dictating terms. Everyone should be supportive about the prospect of peace in Korea, regardless of whether it makes Trump look good.
Trump would have to familiarize himself with the history of the two governments' prior connections. Trump would have to set goals, together with knowledgeable State staff, going into the meeting which represented clear US interests. Trump would have to enter into such a relationship with awareness of, knowledge of, and support from South Korea (and perhaps other allies in the region), show regard for this support, and signal its presence to this hostile power. You can't accomplish such aims with a sudden, off-the-cuff, photo op.
Even Nixon had (secretly, I grant you) Kissinger go ahead of him into China to prep. Whatever one thinks of the Nixon criminal enterprise, even Nixon knew better than to imagine he could "open China" unaided, with zero preparation, no US plan or goal in mind, and zero assistance from knowledgeable staff.
Trump would have to familiarize himself with the history of the two governments' prior connections. Trump would have to set goals, together with knowledgeable State staff, going into the meeting which represented clear US interests. Trump would have to enter into such a relationship with awareness of, knowledge of, and support from South Korea (and perhaps other allies in the region), show regard for this support, and signal its presence to this hostile power.
The US state department dictating terms representing "clear US interests" to "this hostile power" is what has impeded progress toward peace for decades. In fact the US has an interest in keeping the Korean conflict going as a pretext for military buildup in the Asia-Pacific region- which is actually aimed at China.
Korea is a real place, with real people, who have a right to determine their own future themselves. At a certain point we need to realize that not everything is about us.
Trump would have to enter into such a relationship with awareness of, knowledge of, and support from South Korea (and perhaps other allies in the region), show regard for this support, and signal its presence to this hostile power.
He DOES have the support of South Korea on this. Here's an interview from last year, in which the the ROK foreign-minister Kang Kyung Hwa lauds Trump's "courageous decision" to meet with Kim Jong Un. I don't think the government's attitudes have changed much since then, if for no other reason than the economy is pretty bad right now, and their polling tends to improve when things seem to be warming up between North and South.
To anyone unfamiliar with current South Korean politics: the ruling party right now is the Democratic Party, a centre-left grouping whose supporters probably run the same gamut as the British Labour Party in regards to foreign policy: basically, near-communist on the left, all the way to realistic but slightly dovish Cold Warriors on the right. Right now, the prevailing attitude, as it was under Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo Hyun(the latter being a direct mentor to the current president) is probably something like "Yeah, the DPRK are pretty bad, but a lot of that is to do with the division of the peninsula, and if we reach out to them in a friendly manner, they'll likely improve their attitude."
So, if anything, these guys are AT LEAST as conciliatory as Trump is toward the North, And as for them being unaware, I think I've seen enough photos of Trump, Tillerson, and Pompeo chatting with Moon or Kang, to know that a certain amount of consultation is going on between the two administrations. Moon was right there with Trump and KJU at Panmunjom on Sunday, for example.
With regard to Trump and North Korea, the man is itching to get a Nobel Peace Prize. It's the one accomplishment of Obama's that he can't erase with a stroke of a pen.
Trump would have to familiarize himself with the history of the two governments' prior connections. Trump would have to set goals, together with knowledgeable State staff, going into the meeting which represented clear US interests. Trump would have to enter into such a relationship with awareness of, knowledge of, and support from South Korea (and perhaps other allies in the region), show regard for this support, and signal its presence to this hostile power.
The US state department dictating terms representing "clear US interests" to "this hostile power" is what has impeded progress toward peace for decades. In fact the US has an interest in keeping the Korean conflict going as a pretext for military buildup in the Asia-Pacific region- which is actually aimed at China.
Korea is a real place, with real people, who have a right to determine their own future themselves. At a certain point we need to realize that not everything is about us.
I agree with most of this. One thing I will say, though, is that if things DO go belly-up with this round of detente, you could possibly see public opinion swing back to the hawkish right for a while.
In 2007, after ten years of the detentish Sunshine Policy had failed(or at least were perceived to have failed) at producing the promised results, the main left-wing party ran Chung Dong-Young, a major dove, for president, and he got the worst results since the advent of democracy in the early 90s.
And even now, Moon was elected with 41% of the vote, with 45% going to parties that are more hardassed on North Korea issues. Granted, support for Moon's outreach is probably a bit higher than those figures would indicate.
And, yeah, from a US pov, containing China is probably the main goal. But a lot of people in South Korea still see the North as a threat, even if for a lot of them, it's more in the reluctant "Yes, but..." way that I outlined above.
With regard to Trump and North Korea, the man is itching to get a Nobel Peace Prize. It's the one accomplishment of Obama's that he can't erase with a stroke of a pen.
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was hardly an accomplishment, since it had no real basis other than wishful thinking. But then again the prize has been basically a participation trophy at least since Kissinger got one.
Trump would have to familiarize himself with the history of the two governments' prior connections. Trump would have to set goals, together with knowledgeable State staff, going into the meeting which represented clear US interests. Trump would have to enter into such a relationship with awareness of, knowledge of, and support from South Korea (and perhaps other allies in the region), show regard for this support, and signal its presence to this hostile power.
The US state department dictating terms representing "clear US interests" to "this hostile power" is what has impeded progress toward peace for decades. In fact the US has an interest in keeping the Korean conflict going as a pretext for military buildup in the Asia-Pacific region- which is actually aimed at China.
Korea is a real place, with real people, who have a right to determine their own future themselves. At a certain point we need to realize that not everything is about us.
I agree with most of this. One thing I will say, though, is that if things DO go belly-up with this round of detente, you could possibly see public opinion swing back to the hawkish right for a while.
In 2007, after ten years of the detentish Sunshine Policy had failed(or at least were perceived to have failed) at producing the promised results, the main left-wing party ran Chung Dong-Young, a major dove, for president, and he got the worst results since the advent of democracy in the early 90s.
And even now, Moon was elected with 41% of the vote, with 45% going to parties that are more hardassed on North Korea issues. Granted, support for Moon's outreach is probably a bit higher than those figures would indicate.
And, yeah, from a US pov, containing China is probably the main goal. But a lot of people in South Korea still see the North as a threat, even if for a lot of them, it's more in the reluctant "Yes, but..." way that I outlined above.
Good point. Things could definitely change if Moon can't get results. Which makes attempts from US liberals to undermine the talks for domestic reasons all the more dangerous.
With regard to Trump and North Korea, the man is itching to get a Nobel Peace Prize. It's the one accomplishment of Obama's that he can't erase with a stroke of a pen.
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was hardly an accomplishment, since it had no real basis other than wishful thinking. But then again the prize has been basically a participation trophy at least since Kissinger got one.
Trump would have to enter into such a relationship with awareness of, knowledge of, and support from South Korea (and perhaps other allies in the region), show regard for this support, and signal its presence to this hostile power.
He DOES have the support of South Korea on this. Here's an interview from last year, in which the the ROK foreign-minister Kang Kyung Hwa lauds Trump's "courageous decision" to meet with Kim Jong Un.
I know that. You know that. You wanna bet lunch on the fact that Trump knows that, can keep that fact reliably in mind while doing/saying whatever's needed to keep that support during interactions with Kim (about whose own agenda we may or may not be fully or well-informed)?
So Trump is not the ideal president to be doing this. He's also the only one to be doing this. Clinton did get the promising Agreed Framework in place with Kim Il Sung, which Bush Jr pointlessly torpedoed. Then Bush seemed to change his mind and eventually got something negotiated with the six-party talks. Obama, despite promising to build on it, trashed that and pushed a hard regime change strategy throughout his presidency which accomplished nothing except harden the hostility.
So along comes Trump who actually meets with the supreme leader. Is Trump an idiot, a huckster, an opportunist, an egomaniac, a "mentally deranged dotard" as the beloved and respected comrade supreme leader stated? All these and more are true. Yet here we are. The meetings are happening. Will Trump blow it again? Make things even worse? Very possible. But I doubt any president adhering to the usual state department orthodoxies would have gotten this far.
Trump would have to enter into such a relationship with awareness of, knowledge of, and support from South Korea (and perhaps other allies in the region), show regard for this support, and signal its presence to this hostile power.
He DOES have the support of South Korea on this. Here's an interview from last year, in which the the ROK foreign-minister Kang Kyung Hwa lauds Trump's "courageous decision" to meet with Kim Jong Un.
I know that. You know that. You wanna bet lunch on the fact that Trump knows that, can keep that fact reliably in mind while doing/saying whatever's needed to keep that support during interactions with Kim (about whose own agenda we may or may not be fully or well-informed)?
Well, perhaps he doesn't have all the knowledge he should have about South Korea. But it's pretty clear that he DOES have their support, and nothing I've seen so far from the current South Korean government indicates that they are overly worried, at the present time, about any lack of knowledge on his part being a problem with the ongoing US-DPRK relationship.
Now, yes, Trump could eff up and lose the support of the South Korean government; doesn't seem to have happened in the year or so since this round of detente has been going on, but anything is possible. But I think I'll wait until the Moon administration indicates that they think Trump HAS effed up, before I start lamenting that Trump doesn't have the support of the USA's ally in the region.
(And, bit of educated speculation on my part, but from Moon's perspective, Trump is probably most likely to eff up if he adopts the policies being urged upon him by hawks, both conservative and liberal, in the USA, rather than if he continues the "bromance" with KJU. I live in the region that is the main stronghold of the Democratic Party, and let's just say that viewing North Korea as a "hostile power" is not always the most popular line to take around here.)
So along comes Trump who actually meets with the supreme leader. Is Trump an idiot, a huckster, an opportunist, an egomaniac, a "mentally deranged dotard" as the beloved and respected comrade supreme leader stated? All these and more are true. Yet here we are. The meetings are happening. Will Trump blow it again? Make things even worse? Very possible. But I doubt any president adhering to the usual state department orthodoxies would have gotten this far.
What do you mean "this far"? So far the only concrete thing to happen are meetings between the American president* and North Korea's dear leader. This is something North Korea has long wanted, so any previous president could have accomplished this. On the other hand "the usual state department orthodoxies" held that holding photo-ops with adversarial dictators unconditionally and for the sole purpose of publicity/propaganda was a bad idea, so in that sense I suppose no previous president would have gotten "this far".
I also question the larger scale implications regarding proliferation. The lesson here seems to be that an unpopular pariah state can win its way back into the good graces of the world (or at least the Americans) through a successful nuclear program. Even if you've stopped worrying and learned to love the (North Korean) bomb it seems like some thought should be given to who's next.
So along comes Trump who actually meets with the supreme leader. Is Trump an idiot, a huckster, an opportunist, an egomaniac, a "mentally deranged dotard" as the beloved and respected comrade supreme leader stated? All these and more are true. Yet here we are. The meetings are happening. Will Trump blow it again? Make things even worse? Very possible. But I doubt any president adhering to the usual state department orthodoxies would have gotten this far.
What do you mean "this far"? So far the only concrete thing to happen are meetings between the American president* and North Korea's dear leader. This is something North Korea has long wanted, so any previous president could have accomplished this.
And yet they didn't, based on some obsession with the idea that continued sanctions and threats would foment regime change.
On the other hand "the usual state department orthodoxies" held that holding photo-ops with adversarial dictators unconditionally and for the sole purpose of publicity/propaganda was a bad idea, so in that sense I suppose no previous president would have gotten "this far".
Again, the most important work may be between the North and South Korean leadership. Insofar as Trump is facilitating that, it can hardly be called "for the sole purpose of publicity/propaganda." That may be how he sees it but the Americans are not the sole actors here. It looks like Seoul is taking the opportunity to keep building ties with Pyongyang. Here's hoping Trump does not sideline Moon and the stupidity of American politics does not derail fruitful contacts between North and South.
I also question the larger scale implications regarding proliferation. The lesson here seems to be that an unpopular pariah state can win its way back into the good graces of the world (or at least the Americans) through a successful nuclear program.
Or the lesson could be that sanctions, isolation, and continued antagonization can produce the opposite of the intended effect. The state department dittoheads were all saying for years how it was only a matter of time before North Koreans rose up and overthrew their government. Similar approach to Iran. How's that working out? As for proliferation, North Korea had no nukes until after Bush Jr. tore up the Agreed Framework. And such a development was perfectly predictable and, from a regime-preservation standpoint, rational.
So the Orange one is turning his attention to the EU now. Using his normal bullying tactics of more sanctions on top of those already in place. I think he will find the EU much more difficult to deal with. We are capable of producing many things in house. We sell around the world and have valuable contracts elsewhere. We will not roll over and allow Trump to tickle our tummies (sorry for that image)
Meanwhile, back in the US, there is now apparently a public split (what else is new?) in the administration toward North Korea, with one faction advocating a nuclear "freeze" and the other maintaining some possibly non-existent alternative status quo.
This is the central problem with The Menace and his foreign "policy" impulses. He gets a bright (according to him) idea and floats it by tweet without consulting advisors; advisors rush in to contradict it; and then neither allies nor adversaries have any idea what page we're on. Also, the Menace has a serious track record for abrupt changes of mind, sometimes by 180 degrees, within minutes or hours. T believes this (keeping everyone around him off balance and confused) places him at an advantage; whether or not this is true, it doesn't help the US maintain good relations with allies.
And the truth is that it's likely all T is really interested in is whether "opening up" North Korea will give him opportunities to open hotels or golf courses there. If you think T himself gives two s**ts whether North Korea could bomb the US into cracker crumbs, I have a nice little bridge you could pick up for a song.
So the Orange one is turning his attention to the EU now. Using his normal bullying tactics of more sanctions on top of those already in place. I think he will find the EU much more difficult to deal with. We are capable of producing many things in house. We sell around the world and have valuable contracts elsewhere. We will not roll over and allow Trump to tickle our tummies (sorry for that image)
Talks intensified after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States on a protectionist platform. That forced the EU halt talks with the US and look elsewhere to shore up trade partnerships. The EU has recently signed trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, and Japan.
This was the predictable response to Trump's tariff approach to diplomacy--it is not safe to trade with the U.S. When the issues were purely economic, there might have been some justification of using discrete tariffs to try to correct trade imbalances. However, as Trump demonstrated with Mexico, he has crossed into threatening tariffs to get social policy changes (in Mexico's case, trying to use tariffs to get Mexico to handle migrants differently). This is the warning sign to all other countries: trade with the U.S. and you risk the U.S. using that as leverage to impose American policies on to your governments. It is no surprise that governments will increasingly look elsewhere for trade deals--and leave the U.S. on the outside looking in.
The thing is, even once Trump is gone, it would probably be wise for those countries to look elsewhere for trade because clearly the American electoral system clearly could throw up another demagogue like Trump at any time. This will become even more apparent if Trump gets re-elected.
This was the predictable response to Trump's tariff approach to diplomacy--it is not safe to trade with the U.S. When the issues were purely economic, there might have been some justification of using discrete tariffs to try to correct trade imbalances. However, as Trump demonstrated with Mexico, he has crossed into threatening tariffs to get social policy changes (in Mexico's case, trying to use tariffs to get Mexico to handle migrants differently). This is the warning sign to all other countries: trade with the U.S. and you risk the U.S. using that as leverage to impose American policies on to your governments. It is no surprise that governments will increasingly look elsewhere for trade deals--and leave the U.S. on the outside looking in.
The thing is, even once Trump is gone, it would probably be wise for those countries to look elsewhere for trade because clearly the American electoral system clearly could throw up another demagogue like Trump at any time. This will become even more apparent if Trump gets re-elected.
The interesting thing is that the tariffs are a Trumpian idiosyncrasy. There's no real constituency for them within the Republican party unlike, for example, racist immigration policies or belligerence towards Iran.
This is interesting. Apparently Mike Pence has been suddenly turned around from a trip to New Hampshire and is now at the White House. Some reports say Air Force 2 was turned around, other say he never left DC and his motorcade turned back before reaching Andrews. His spokeswoman says (via Twitter) that there's nothing to see here.
The VP never left Washington, DC. There was no “emergency callback.” Something came up that required the VP to stay in DC. We’ll reschedule NH shortly.
Something came up that required the VP to remain in Washington, DC. It’s no cause for alarm. He looks forward to rescheduling the trip to New Hampshire very soon.
No clarification on what "something came up" means. The problem with having a reputation for shamelessly lying is that nothing the administration* says about this will be taken at face value, so statements that there is nothing wrong with the president*'s health get interpreted as "OMG! There's something wrong with the president*!!!" So probably nothing, but how would we know differently?
With regard to Trump and North Korea, the man is itching to get a Nobel Peace Prize. It's the one accomplishment of Obama's that he can't erase with a stroke of a pen.
Yep, I saw the "turned back to Washington" thing too, and the weird mis-speaking (?) where the spokesperson referred to Pence as "the president"....
Really, it's all very interesting. But I've not seen anything else yet. I'm wondering if there's been some sort of significant WTF event in Trump's mental and physical decline.
Not sure if I'm as bullish as Moon is, and of course he has an interest in promoting a rosy picture of things. Still, his reference to the military agreement signed last year should demonstrate that there is a bit more going on here than simple photo-ops.
The South Koreans are in a tough spot, the same tough spot they have been in for a long time. Achieving a sense of detente with the North, perhaps one day leading to a much-hoped-for reunification, would be a wonderful thing. But if this is not achieved under the Trump Administration, that is not going to be the fault of Americans who oppose Trump. I think it will most likely be the fault of the North Koreans or Trump himself. They are the ones sitting around the table.
Sir P. and Stetson are right. Negotiations with North Korea should be an unalloyed good thing. But Trump has failed to carry the bulk of the American people with him, and he has failed to convince American opinion-leaders that he is doing what needs to be done to achieve peace. That is a shameful failure on Trump's part, a failure that is mirrored in all aspects of his Presidency. The great negotiator can't convince people that what he does is necessary or right. It's not only a shameful failure, it is a shameful failure of Trump's capacity to lead.
So that's the issue here. It's not that Americans are willfully blind to the benefits and promise of Trump's policies in Korea. It is that Trump has failed to convince Americans that what he is doing is the right thing to do. Trump, and not Stetson, should be handing around articles supportive of his policy to a media contingent that he and his media people have groomed to be receptive to his overtures. Trump, and not Sir P. should be putting positions to the mainstream media that show that his policy is more likely to achieve results than the policies of the past. Trump might think about showing respect to his predecessors and their policies while explaining that in the current climate, his approach is the right one to take.
I could go on, but I will just reiterate my main point. If the mainstream media and the vast bulk of Americans do not support Trump's policy on Korea, that is mainly Trump's fault. It is his fault because he has continued to foster an aggressive and oppositional approach in Washington and around the country. It is his fault because he is a shithouse President and a garbage negotiator.
It's not that Americans are willfully blind to the benefits and promise of Trump's policies in Korea. It is that Trump has failed to convince Americans that what he is doing is the right thing to do.
But American politicians, including top Democrats, are not only willfully blind to the benefits but vocally oppose any meaningful negotiation. The standard line is that he is giving legitimacy to a brutal dictator, giving away too much, blah blah blah. Around the time of the Hanoi summit, Pelosi lectured some visiting South Korea politicians in DC about why they were naïve and shouldn't trust the North- because she understands their country better than they do. When the summit collapsed she couldn't contain her glee.
If the mainstream media and the vast bulk of Americans do not support Trump's policy on Korea, that is mainly Trump's fault.
Um, no. The task of the media is not to complacently wait for the government to set the narrative and supply talking points- though that is often what they in fact do. There is no excuse for the ignorance and misinformation they continue to propagate. Trump being an idiot does not prevent journalists from doing their homework. These "democracy dies in darkness" people like to talk about the importance of a free, independent media and yet, by and large, they continue to operate as uncritical mouthpieces of the foreign policy establishment and all its myopic, discredited dogma.
Comments
Aren't the agents at fault? I looked through a photo album some years ago of my cousins wearing brown and black shirts and swastika armbands, and know what some of them did 70 years ago.
I work in a situation where I have power over the physical well-being of others (Disability support worker in a home with 5 clients). Lots of people in my industry have abused people like my clients, and maybe even my clients. The abuse ranges from rape and sexual assault to assault and battery to threats to more insidious forms of abuse and manipulation. We are trained in techniques to manage our frustrations, and the chief one is to exit the situation and cool off. It works a treat. If we work in a house where people are violent, we are given ad-hoc training about how to deal with that person. I won't get into more detail but if a support worker abuses a client they are to blame.
The point is that people who abuse others (with the possible exception of manipulative conduct) know they are doing the wrong thing. They pick their targets and they try to cover their tracks. When you punch someone, or deny them food or drink or just fail to treat them with human decency you know what you are doing. People who abuse others in their care are at fault.
If there is not sufficient resources available, then frontline staff are not to blame. That looks like a big issue in the detention centres. It's why I'm ambivalent about the staff of a furniture company supplying the centres striking about it. People need beds and seats.
Oh hang on though - that would deprive you of the pleasure of seeing him being fed (judicially) to the lions, after you get rid of him.
Sorry - cross-post - replying to @Ohher.
Trump's fondness for Kim Jong Un is one of the few redeeming features of his presidency. The new rapport between the North Korean and US leaders is very much endorsed by the current government in the ROK, which is centre=left and oriented toward detente.
Personally, my ideal scenario would be Trump and Pence get impeached for whatever can be dug up against them, Pelosi becomes POTUS, and Trump gets sentenced to community-service negotiationg with the DPRK, something he does seem to have a knack for.
I'm not sure that his interventions can be trusted to be good and useful. He's repeatedly *defended* strong man leaders when they were criticized.
With regards to North Korea, I don't think it's a case of "seeking out" strongman dictators, that's just the kind of person who runs that country.
As I said, the government in Seoul is also supportive of outreach to the North. I can assure you that Moon Jae In is not a dictator of any sort. The dictatorship nostalgists are almost all on the Right, the people most hostile to detente.
The Hankyoreh is the leading progressive daily in the ROK. Here is a recent editorial, written a couple of days before yesterday's meeting, offering a mostly positive assessment of US-DPRK rleations under Trump.
And here is their post-Panmunjom analysis.
You're welcome! And I should read into the record that there are certainly right-wing South Koreans as well. Some of them were out in the streets welcoming Trump the other day, probably under the broad analysis of "Republican president = good guy".
But from the conservative media organs, you can see that there is a bit of politely expressed distrust of Trump's dealings with the North Koreans, along the lines of "He might be selling out South Korea's security to the commies."
That's clear in his body language. Notice how often he touches Pewtrin and Kim Wrong Trim.
That wouldn't surprise me at all. I have to roll my eyes when I see even liberal politicians and media wailing about how "Trump is selling out our allies in South Korea!", without apparently even having bothered to check what those allies are thinking at the present time.
While the border camps are up,
Well, I think there's a useful distinction to be made between praising Trump personally, and saying that the policy he is pursuing in one particular part of the world is the best one for stability in that region.
If I, as a resident of Korea, think that detente with the North is making my current living space a less dangerous place to be, I'm not going to advocate the reversal of that policy, just so I can be on the opposite side of the issue as Trump.
Well, what would Trump have to do in order to make this relationship be a relationship with the US as a whole?
Or to phrase my question by way of historical analogy, when Nixon went to China, how was that a China/US relationship, as opposed to a Mao/Nixon relationship?
Even Nixon had (secretly, I grant you) Kissinger go ahead of him into China to prep. Whatever one thinks of the Nixon criminal enterprise, even Nixon knew better than to imagine he could "open China" unaided, with zero preparation, no US plan or goal in mind, and zero assistance from knowledgeable staff.
The US state department dictating terms representing "clear US interests" to "this hostile power" is what has impeded progress toward peace for decades. In fact the US has an interest in keeping the Korean conflict going as a pretext for military buildup in the Asia-Pacific region- which is actually aimed at China.
Korea is a real place, with real people, who have a right to determine their own future themselves. At a certain point we need to realize that not everything is about us.
He DOES have the support of South Korea on this. Here's an interview from last year, in which the the ROK foreign-minister Kang Kyung Hwa lauds Trump's "courageous decision" to meet with Kim Jong Un. I don't think the government's attitudes have changed much since then, if for no other reason than the economy is pretty bad right now, and their polling tends to improve when things seem to be warming up between North and South.
To anyone unfamiliar with current South Korean politics: the ruling party right now is the Democratic Party, a centre-left grouping whose supporters probably run the same gamut as the British Labour Party in regards to foreign policy: basically, near-communist on the left, all the way to realistic but slightly dovish Cold Warriors on the right. Right now, the prevailing attitude, as it was under Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo Hyun(the latter being a direct mentor to the current president) is probably something like "Yeah, the DPRK are pretty bad, but a lot of that is to do with the division of the peninsula, and if we reach out to them in a friendly manner, they'll likely improve their attitude."
So, if anything, these guys are AT LEAST as conciliatory as Trump is toward the North, And as for them being unaware, I think I've seen enough photos of Trump, Tillerson, and Pompeo chatting with Moon or Kang, to know that a certain amount of consultation is going on between the two administrations. Moon was right there with Trump and KJU at Panmunjom on Sunday, for example.
I agree with most of this. One thing I will say, though, is that if things DO go belly-up with this round of detente, you could possibly see public opinion swing back to the hawkish right for a while.
In 2007, after ten years of the detentish Sunshine Policy had failed(or at least were perceived to have failed) at producing the promised results, the main left-wing party ran Chung Dong-Young, a major dove, for president, and he got the worst results since the advent of democracy in the early 90s.
And even now, Moon was elected with 41% of the vote, with 45% going to parties that are more hardassed on North Korea issues. Granted, support for Moon's outreach is probably a bit higher than those figures would indicate.
And, yeah, from a US pov, containing China is probably the main goal. But a lot of people in South Korea still see the North as a threat, even if for a lot of them, it's more in the reluctant "Yes, but..." way that I outlined above.
Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was hardly an accomplishment, since it had no real basis other than wishful thinking. But then again the prize has been basically a participation trophy at least since Kissinger got one.
Good point. Things could definitely change if Moon can't get results. Which makes attempts from US liberals to undermine the talks for domestic reasons all the more dangerous.
And since we're in the region, I'll mention the first US president to ever get the Nobel, Teddy Roosevelt, who was awarded the prize for negotiating the treaty that more-or-less handed Korea over to Japanese annexation.
Granted, it's debatable how likely an independent Korea(as opposed to a Russian Korea) would have been in 1905. And Teddy, did, in fact, end the war.
"In his own madness, he brings innocent eyes to the Korean situtation."
Bruce Cumings, last year. Cumings is probably the leading left-wing historian of the Korean War.
I know that. You know that. You wanna bet lunch on the fact that Trump knows that, can keep that fact reliably in mind while doing/saying whatever's needed to keep that support during interactions with Kim (about whose own agenda we may or may not be fully or well-informed)?
So along comes Trump who actually meets with the supreme leader. Is Trump an idiot, a huckster, an opportunist, an egomaniac, a "mentally deranged dotard" as the beloved and respected comrade supreme leader stated? All these and more are true. Yet here we are. The meetings are happening. Will Trump blow it again? Make things even worse? Very possible. But I doubt any president adhering to the usual state department orthodoxies would have gotten this far.
Well, perhaps he doesn't have all the knowledge he should have about South Korea. But it's pretty clear that he DOES have their support, and nothing I've seen so far from the current South Korean government indicates that they are overly worried, at the present time, about any lack of knowledge on his part being a problem with the ongoing US-DPRK relationship.
Now, yes, Trump could eff up and lose the support of the South Korean government; doesn't seem to have happened in the year or so since this round of detente has been going on, but anything is possible. But I think I'll wait until the Moon administration indicates that they think Trump HAS effed up, before I start lamenting that Trump doesn't have the support of the USA's ally in the region.
(And, bit of educated speculation on my part, but from Moon's perspective, Trump is probably most likely to eff up if he adopts the policies being urged upon him by hawks, both conservative and liberal, in the USA, rather than if he continues the "bromance" with KJU. I live in the region that is the main stronghold of the Democratic Party, and let's just say that viewing North Korea as a "hostile power" is not always the most popular line to take around here.)
What do you mean "this far"? So far the only concrete thing to happen are meetings between the American president* and North Korea's dear leader. This is something North Korea has long wanted, so any previous president could have accomplished this. On the other hand "the usual state department orthodoxies" held that holding photo-ops with adversarial dictators unconditionally and for the sole purpose of publicity/propaganda was a bad idea, so in that sense I suppose no previous president would have gotten "this far".
I also question the larger scale implications regarding proliferation. The lesson here seems to be that an unpopular pariah state can win its way back into the good graces of the world (or at least the Americans) through a successful nuclear program. Even if you've stopped worrying and learned to love the (North Korean) bomb it seems like some thought should be given to who's next.
And yet they didn't, based on some obsession with the idea that continued sanctions and threats would foment regime change.
Again, the most important work may be between the North and South Korean leadership. Insofar as Trump is facilitating that, it can hardly be called "for the sole purpose of publicity/propaganda." That may be how he sees it but the Americans are not the sole actors here. It looks like Seoul is taking the opportunity to keep building ties with Pyongyang. Here's hoping Trump does not sideline Moon and the stupidity of American politics does not derail fruitful contacts between North and South.
Or the lesson could be that sanctions, isolation, and continued antagonization can produce the opposite of the intended effect. The state department dittoheads were all saying for years how it was only a matter of time before North Koreans rose up and overthrew their government. Similar approach to Iran. How's that working out? As for proliferation, North Korea had no nukes until after Bush Jr. tore up the Agreed Framework. And such a development was perfectly predictable and, from a regime-preservation standpoint, rational.
This is the central problem with The Menace and his foreign "policy" impulses. He gets a bright (according to him) idea and floats it by tweet without consulting advisors; advisors rush in to contradict it; and then neither allies nor adversaries have any idea what page we're on. Also, the Menace has a serious track record for abrupt changes of mind, sometimes by 180 degrees, within minutes or hours. T believes this (keeping everyone around him off balance and confused) places him at an advantage; whether or not this is true, it doesn't help the US maintain good relations with allies.
And the truth is that it's likely all T is really interested in is whether "opening up" North Korea will give him opportunities to open hotels or golf courses there. If you think T himself gives two s**ts whether North Korea could bomb the US into cracker crumbs, I have a nice little bridge you could pick up for a song.
This was the predictable response to Trump's tariff approach to diplomacy--it is not safe to trade with the U.S. When the issues were purely economic, there might have been some justification of using discrete tariffs to try to correct trade imbalances. However, as Trump demonstrated with Mexico, he has crossed into threatening tariffs to get social policy changes (in Mexico's case, trying to use tariffs to get Mexico to handle migrants differently). This is the warning sign to all other countries: trade with the U.S. and you risk the U.S. using that as leverage to impose American policies on to your governments. It is no surprise that governments will increasingly look elsewhere for trade deals--and leave the U.S. on the outside looking in.
The thing is, even once Trump is gone, it would probably be wise for those countries to look elsewhere for trade because clearly the American electoral system clearly could throw up another demagogue like Trump at any time. This will become even more apparent if Trump gets re-elected.
The interesting thing is that the tariffs are a Trumpian idiosyncrasy. There's no real constituency for them within the Republican party unlike, for example, racist immigration policies or belligerence towards Iran.
No clarification on what "something came up" means. The problem with having a reputation for shamelessly lying is that nothing the administration* says about this will be taken at face value, so statements that there is nothing wrong with the president*'s health get interpreted as "OMG! There's something wrong with the president*!!!" So probably nothing, but how would we know differently?
Really, it's all very interesting. But I've not seen anything else yet. I'm wondering if there's been some sort of significant WTF event in Trump's mental and physical decline.
Hope springs eternal ...
Not sure if I'm as bullish as Moon is, and of course he has an interest in promoting a rosy picture of things. Still, his reference to the military agreement signed last year should demonstrate that there is a bit more going on here than simple photo-ops.
Sir P. and Stetson are right. Negotiations with North Korea should be an unalloyed good thing. But Trump has failed to carry the bulk of the American people with him, and he has failed to convince American opinion-leaders that he is doing what needs to be done to achieve peace. That is a shameful failure on Trump's part, a failure that is mirrored in all aspects of his Presidency. The great negotiator can't convince people that what he does is necessary or right. It's not only a shameful failure, it is a shameful failure of Trump's capacity to lead.
So that's the issue here. It's not that Americans are willfully blind to the benefits and promise of Trump's policies in Korea. It is that Trump has failed to convince Americans that what he is doing is the right thing to do. Trump, and not Stetson, should be handing around articles supportive of his policy to a media contingent that he and his media people have groomed to be receptive to his overtures. Trump, and not Sir P. should be putting positions to the mainstream media that show that his policy is more likely to achieve results than the policies of the past. Trump might think about showing respect to his predecessors and their policies while explaining that in the current climate, his approach is the right one to take.
I could go on, but I will just reiterate my main point. If the mainstream media and the vast bulk of Americans do not support Trump's policy on Korea, that is mainly Trump's fault. It is his fault because he has continued to foster an aggressive and oppositional approach in Washington and around the country. It is his fault because he is a shithouse President and a garbage negotiator.
Yes! magazine has "20 Ways You Can Help Immigrants Now: While Congress stalls, you can take other kinds of actions to help immigrants in transition, in detention, and in crisis."
Might be useful. FWIW, YMMV.
But American politicians, including top Democrats, are not only willfully blind to the benefits but vocally oppose any meaningful negotiation. The standard line is that he is giving legitimacy to a brutal dictator, giving away too much, blah blah blah. Around the time of the Hanoi summit, Pelosi lectured some visiting South Korea politicians in DC about why they were naïve and shouldn't trust the North- because she understands their country better than they do. When the summit collapsed she couldn't contain her glee.
Um, no. The task of the media is not to complacently wait for the government to set the narrative and supply talking points- though that is often what they in fact do. There is no excuse for the ignorance and misinformation they continue to propagate. Trump being an idiot does not prevent journalists from doing their homework. These "democracy dies in darkness" people like to talk about the importance of a free, independent media and yet, by and large, they continue to operate as uncritical mouthpieces of the foreign policy establishment and all its myopic, discredited dogma.