"What should US policy with respect to North Korea be at this point?"

[MineralMan]

Another DUer asked this question as a non sequitur in another thread. It intrigued me, so I'm starting a new thread with that question.

And here's my answer:

US policy should be very cautious and distrustful of Kim Jong Un. Before making any deal, our President should be fully briefed on North Korea's history and its record of deceptive moves. We should be very wary of any deal that puts off denuclearization while insisting on recognition by the US of the Juche regime as a legitimate and trustworthy government.

We should not put momentary presidential success ahead of careful planning and assurances that any agreement will be faithfully honored and followed by Kim. We should not give up anything without getting equal value from North Korea.

That's my answer. I doubt that will be how this whole thing goes, though. I feel certain that Trump will sign something he doesn't understand and then will come home crowing about his "deal-making" expertise. In the end, his "deal" will cost us dearly down the road.

[Yonnie3]

1. If one is aware of NK's history then one is aware of their dismal record of human rights.

Insistence on basic human rights should be part of any agreement. It is much too easy to end up solely focused on nukes and military posture.

I, as you, doubt that there will be consideration of anything other than the appearance of a "deal" with the present "president."

[guillaumeb]

2. Speaking of history, the US and the USSR mutually divided Korea.

The subsequent war was a result of that colonial power play by 2 empires. And THAT is a part of history that is generally ignored by US commentators when discussing the Korean peninsula.

Is it any wonder that the North Koreans do not trust the US?

[MineralMan]

7. No, it's not any wonder at all.

Besides, there's Trump to consider. Who would ever trust him?

[malaise]

13. And speaking of history

Can I have the US human rights history overseas?

[guillaumeb]

14. For $100?

In the early 1950s, in which Middle Eastern country did the CIA incite and support a rebellion to overthrow a lawfully elected President who proposed to nationalize the oil industry?

[malaise]

15. Would that be Iran

for starters

and then there is Patrice Lumumba.

[guillaumeb]

16. Well done.

I belong to a social justice group. Years ago, I asked the question: how many times did the US invade Canada?

The members were stunned when I stated that the US invaded Canada twice. First, during the US revolution, and second, during the war of 1812.

[malaise]

17. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

[guillaumeb]

18. My fault.

A good question to ask would be: how many countries do not host a US military installation?

[malaise]

19. These?

[guillaumeb]

22. An excellent graphic.

It looks like a predatory octopus.

But one with good intentions of course.

[oberliner]

3. It wasn't a non sequitur

It was a direct response to a post pointing out that NK is responsible for human rights violations.

[MineralMan]

4. So, again, why not give us your answer to your question?

[DFW]

5. Were it up to me, I'd say "brutal pragmatism."

We are dealing with a brutal family dynasty to whom no action is too awful to contemplate to retain power. Kim doesn't want democracy. How do you think he would fare in a fairly held election? So don't act like that is a goal some day. His country is starving. He wants food. But he doesn't want contented citizens, because they wouldn't be susceptible to his propaganda any more, so he needs to continue to control food distribution. He doesn't want freedom of the press or education. Inform his population of his failures? Are you nuts? What he wants is what will serve as a guarantee his country will not be invaded, its socialist (i.e. state-run) economy compromised, his media control weakened, or any empowering of dissent. Anything less than that will constitute, for Kim, an unacceptable meddling in his internal affairs. "Let me continue to be absolute ruler, and give me enough material means to ensure my population will not depose me violently."

The sooner we accept that THIS is who we are dealing with, the sooner we can talk to North Korea on a level it understands. I think they understand us just fine. But we need to understand that what the Kim dynasty wants is NOT what we want. If we don't, we'll never get anywhere, and the stalemate can continue for another 65 years.

[MineralMan]

6. Good points.

[guillaumeb]

8. And North Korea knows of the role that the US played

in dividing Korea.

So neither side has any reason to trust the other. So yes, pragmatism is a factor, but of the 2 countries, only one has over 1,000 military bases all over the world.

[DFW]

20. Of the two countries

Only one has land borders with both Russia and China, too. "Big Bad Imperialists" is for the propaganda posters, not the negotiating table. Kim knows better than that. Kim knows that none of the big powers want to feed his 20 million starving population, and neither does Moon. They like teary photos of family reunions. They are cheap. Three square meals a day times 20 million is an expense on another scale, so Kim has nothing to fear, invasion-wise. Nor does he have any interest in seeing Tokyo or Los Angeles go up in a "made in DPRK" mushroom cloud. He wants money and food. He gets that from threats and theatrics, not declarations of war.

[handmade34]

9. ...

Noam Chomsky's interesting take on it...

"...Furthermore, as Korea specialist Chung-in Moon reviews in Foreign Affairs, the two sides did not just make high-level commitments. They also laid out specific timetables for implementing them and took concrete steps that would have immediate effects in facilitating cooperation and preventing conflict...
The import of the Declaration is clear. The US should back off and allow the two Koreas to achieve peace, disarmament, unification and complete denuclearization. We should accept the call for support and cooperation in this endeavor by the two parts of the Korean nation to determine its destiny "on their own accord."


To put it more simply, the Declaration is a polite letter saying, "Dear Mr. Trump, declare victory if you want to prance around in public, but please go away and let us move towards peace, disarmament and unification without disrupting the process."...

https://www.alternet.org/noam-chomsky-donald-trump-and-me-first-doctrine

[MineralMan]

11. Yes, it does seem as though the North and South are beginning to

discuss ways to end the division of their two societies. They are all Koreans. It is not a huge place, really. Perhaps the solution will come through their negotiations, rather than through ignorant interference by the United States. We're not very good at such things in any Asian culture. We don't bother to understand, so we propose stupid things.

Vietnam seems to have dealt with all that pretty well, I think. I don't know a lot about the reunification and its current state, but there's no more warfare going on, so that's a good thing.

The United States tends to make a hash of foreign relations in areas where the culture is much different than our own. Less meddling is probably an excellent idea.

[spanone]

12. trump will want much more acclaim than that scenario will allow.

I believe this will all be about getting trump the nobel peace prize...that's his goal, to get what Obama got.

he knows nothing about the history of the Koreas and has no curiosity.

it's all about the prize....that's as deep as his river runs...imho

[CK_John]

10. China will take care of Kim Jong Un, he is getting in their way to take Siberia.

[Uncle Joe]

21. Why would Kim Jong Un care about China getting their way in Siberia?