11
votes
I'm so excited about the Singapore summit. I am really hoping for a productive deal to come out of it.
Just the fact that it's even happening is amazing to me. There are cute Trump/Kim impersonators out and about, performances, Dennis Rodman is present, it feels really really exciting... i just don't even have words for how wonderful this will be if it ends up how I am imagining - not just for the USA, but for North Korea, South Korea, and the whole world.
It's better to be friends.
Also, I really hope the USA establishes an embassy in Singapore. That would be such an easy win.
edit: i found some relevant links:
- https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/trump-kim-handshake-summit-history
- live feed: https://www.c-span.org/video/?446916-1/us-north-korea-summit-underway-singapore
edit: for those curious about the significance of Dennis Rodman, here's a CNN interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS494th_Js4
Oh, you dear sweet naive person, you. :)
There have already been multiple agreements with North Korea where they promised to de-nuclearise. They just continued to work on nuclear weapons.
Meanwhile, the American president has been withdrawing from agreements the USA was committed to - most relevantly, the agreement for Iran not to develop nuclear weapons.
Neither of these leaders can be trusted to follow through on their promises.
Well. If a basketball player is there... this must be an important meeting! :P
I'm convinced OP just posts stuff like this to get a rise out of people.
It's so obviously intentionally naive and annoying. As a troll it's fairly decent, because it allows him to play the victim if someone calls him out.
But it's all posted in bad faith. OP doesn't really want discussion.
How so? To me, it seems like he actually wants to talk about it. If you think his view is too naive, you can try to explain to OP why you believe he is wrong, but mumberthrax seems to be genuinely contributing and talking about his view.
Yeah, this is a bad-faith post. No one honestly writes about political summits as if they were comeback tours for 80s pop stars.
I don't think @mumberthrax is posting in bad faith. Isn't it okay to be excited about people discussing peace? Whether or not peace actually happens, whatever the percentage chance of it happening, I would rather there be an attempt than not. I'm more than happy to discuss the event and negotiation challenges.
My personal opinion and experiences are likely to differ significantly about the event. But call someone a troll because they're excited about peace? No way.
I think its more of the fact that President Trump brought this about. This has plenty of people gassed up, they would rather the world obliterate itself than to see him broker a possible reunification of Korea.
I think that there are many people who would like it to happen but simply do not believe Trump is capable of accomplishing it.
You do understand that we've been at war with North Korea since the 1950s? That this is literally a momentous occasion of global proportions? If you think 80s pop stars are more significant than something like this... you live in a strange world!
I believe he was not referring to the importance of the event, but the style that you were speaking about it in. jgb is claiming that you are speaking about a serious event in a voice that is too causal and sounds too much like a hype squad.
ah ok, that is fair enough. I will concede that I am perhaps a little more excited about this than the average person on tildes.... it's just... a year and a half ago i was terrified of being obliterated by a korean nuke. There's maybe a bit of mania here from the potential for the full relief from any remnant of that fear.
As far as getting hit by a korean nuke goes, I doubt that was ever a real possibility. Kim Jung-Un wants to stay in power and live his life in comfort, and shooting a nuke would deny him any chance of that.
Yeah, I'm not saying it was a rational fear (I don't really know what the chances may have been - obviously 0 since it never happened but still), just that it was present and may have influenced the heightened excitement i conveyed in my post which jgb picked up on.
That's not how probabilities work. If you roll a 6 on a die, the chance of rolling a two wasn't, retrospectively, 0.
Though you're right to say that the probability was low. A nuclear attack on the USA would be literal suicide for North Korea.
Well i mean, a probability only relates to the future as far as I am aware. I guess it depends on if you believe in predetermination, or a single linear experience of time... maybe?
Out of curiosity, where do you live that you were afraid of a North Korean nuclear strike?
Not outside of the blast range if a nearby military installment were considered a valid target. Sorry that is a bit vague.
No, that makes perfect sense. Living near a significant military installation is probably more reason to be concerned than living most other places, though it's still really unlikely.
I strongly disagree. @Mumberthrax is sincere in his beliefs and opinions. Stop accusing him of posting in bad faith.
It's a serious topic. Gushing over an over the hill basketball player and celebrity impersonators is ridiculous. I think it's an attempt to rile people.
You can't blame him for pulling out of a bad deal. What kind of leader would knowingly and willingly lock their country into an agreement that was not in their best interests? I also would not consider myself a naive person, I have hopes that many good and positive things come from this summit.
Whether the deal was in the USA's best interests or not, it had been committed to by the USA. By pulling out of that deal, the USA now looks unreliable: it makes deals and then reneges on them. And this wasn't the first deal that the USA has withdrawn from recently. How can we trust that the USA will stick with this deal when it hasn't stuck with previous deals?
We've got two unreliable actors in North Korea and the USA. Both of them have reneged on deals. That doesn't build a sense of confidence that any deal they strike now will last.
Leadership changes, and I believe that nations are entitled to change their minds about treaties. The circumstances that made it seem appealing at the time can later prove to be less than favorable. I have not personally read the details of the treaties, but it is my understanding that there is not a time limit imposed.
Going forward I think it would be a good idea if there was a time limit imposed, if that is not already something being done. Then if a nation decides that they no longer wish to be a party to the treaty they have an opportunity to excuse themselves with no hard feelings. Truthfully, I feel that the citizens themselves should be afforded the opportunity to vote upon binding treaties. There are far too many politicians interested in keeping their corporate sponsors happy rather than the will of their constituents.
Regardless of the internal politics involved, this inevitably leads to a sense that a nation is unreliable. "Sure, I've signed a treaty with the current government of FormerEnemyLand, but that treaty is only good until their next election/coup/whatever. So I only have to wait a few years for the treaty to lapse and I can go back to doing what I want."
I can't believe so many people are essentially advocating for anarchy, global economic depression, and possibly a world war. Modern geopolitics requires most people to be acting in good faith.
They are either painfully naive, or acting in bad faith themselves.
Like...?
I mean, apart from "now you can stop blabbing about playing total war with your missile powered with horses shit?" what actual benefit USA can get out of this meetings?
Seriously, N Korea cannot do anything to anyone apart launching a missile, that would probably be intercepted anyway because everyone was watching the country, and then being obliterated due to the attack.
It's just a weapon of mass distraction and, if this agreement end up without some ridiculous twist, will just be a meaningless "achievement" of mighty president Trump.
I've had a couple of exchange with Mumberthrax and they all fall in two categories:
My perception is, of course, not objective. No ones is. But seeing lots of people having the same-ish reaction, make me think.
Rodman is a friend of both Trump and Kim. It's a great symbol, and may be helpful from a sort of pre-suasion perspective. He's the one who gave Kim a copy of The Art of the Deal as a birthday gift.
edit: also, he isn't at the meeting afaik. just in singapore after fans and supporters raised money for the trip for him.
I hope something comes out of it, but I am not expecting much. North Korea has had a history of playing along for a bit to get sanctions temporarily removed but not actually doing much in return. Afterwards, they just go back to doing what they were before. Who knows though, maybe this will be different.
North Korea isn't the only party in these discussions that doesn't honour deals. The USA has done its fair share of pulling out of deals lately. They're both unreliable actors.
That is a good point. Between the two of them, I am afraid the bigger question is not will there be a deal but who will decide to pull out first. The smart play for both sides would probably be to let the other side pull out, so they can claim a sort of moral high ground.
A sort of twisted version of Prisoner's Dilemma! "The cost to me of pulling out first is higher than the cost of letting him pull out first, but there's still a cost to me for not pulling out."
You'd hope that, in a situation where each side's best strategy is to let the other side pull out first, this will lead to both parties staying in the deal in a bizarre version of Chicken. "You pull out first." "No, you pull out first!" "Well, I'm not pulling out of the deal before you do." "Well, I'm not pulling out of the deal until you do!"
Except that, even in a scenario like that, where we would be relying on each side to be slightly irrational and childish, we have to be careful not to underestimate the irrationality and childishness of both principals here. It won't take much for one or the other party to claim that they now have a pretext for pulling out of a bad deal.
True enough. One can always hope that they will have just the right amount of childishness to see it through, however unlikely it may be.
If I had to put money on it, I think N.K. will pull out first. It will be easier for them to justify it than Trump.
But then we have this... https://ncase.me/trust/
The problem with that is that both these principals have shown themselves to be "cheater" types in the past. They don't follow through on deals.
This depends on both parties being rational and seeing that cooperating is the best strategy. Between the two of them, this seems unlikely.
Trump is 99% a cheater or at least a very stupid grudger who takes offense at anything, so in practice he's a cheater.
Kim Jong Un is very much a cheater.
If I measure my enthusiasm, it is possible that this will simply be the beginning of a process. Korea will of course try to get the best deal possible. But the fundamental idea i really hope they get is that if they denuclearize, we have no reason to be at war with them, to do anything other than help them. It's such a strong selling point for a carrot, and john bolton and pompeo being the stick should they choose to be our enemies - to me the choice appears to be such a simple and easy one.
ah right on, i suppose i spoke a little too freely/relaxed. I assume that if they agreed to denuclearization, they'd commit to shutting down prison camps - eventually, but I am definitely not in Kim Jong Un's mind.
However, N. Korea has built its entire image to its citizens as a strong, nuclear state who stands up against the evils of countries like the U.S. If it suddenly makes a deal with the U.S. that involves denuclearization, they might have difficulty justifying it.
I dunno, i think Kim could easily paint it as him being a wise peacemaker, about Trump being different, and about how this will begin the process of reunification - which has been NK's big thing for a long time.
This being the beginning of a process is frankly the best that the US can hope for. It would be beyond shocking if something substantive actually came out of this summit; it would take the surprise announcement that President Trump has secretly been laying the groundwork for this deal since the start of his term without anyone finding out. There's just no way to reach any sort of satisfactory agreement in a single meeting without a whole lot of preparative work.
Out of curiosity, what would you define as a substantive product of the summit?
Any kind of agreement.
"We, the undersigned, agree that North Korea can keep building its nuclear weapons, and the USA will send a billion dollars of foreign aid to help feed the people of North Korea."
"We, the undersigned, agree that the USA will help North Korea unite the Korean peninsula under the one true government of the Korean people."
"We, the undersigned, agree that the USA will back off and leave North Korea the fuck alone, because Donald thinks Jong-Un is a really cool dude and Jong-Un thinks Donald makes the best deals ever."
Well, that wouldn't be desirable, exactly, but it sure as shit would be substantive.
Just out of curiosity again now that the summit is over, did you experience something "beyond shock" when they signed their agreement? xD
It's just the beginning of negotiations, and nobody has offered anything that can't be rescinded - but it still appears to be a win for diplomacy and everyone involved overall from where I stand.
Yes, and not in a good way. I don't think it's a "win for diplomacy," I think we witnessed a President so obsessed with making a deal that he was willing to give up things no previous administration would for nothing more than what previous administrations have gotten.
What do you believe he's given up? Afaik nobody has really given anything up that isn't trivial to take back. The way I see it, the main win for this whole thing was that we took away north korea's reason for needing nuclear weapons.
No matter what, both leaders are eager to declare the summit a success for the optics. And so they will. NO matter what.
No way in hell Kim Jong-Un gives up the nukes that were the dream of his father and grandfather. Especially after being reminded by Bolton of what happened to Gaddafi after he gave up his nukes. He wants the US out of the Korean peninsula, Trump wants the optics of declaring peace in the Korean peninsula and an end to the Korean war so that's what will happen.
A "productive deal" would obviously be a great thing not only for the US, but for the Koreas and the world. I have to say though, nothing I've read points to this meeting having any goals, concrete proposals, or even any points for discussion. North Korea seems to be more interested in scoring a PR victory—Kim being recognized as a legitimate world player, and NK's threats being serious enough to "force" the US president to sit down and talk—and loosening the sanctions a bit, if only for a few months. On the other hand, Trump's blatant disregard for diplomacy and preparedness tell me that he's only interested in the event itself—being able to say he got Kim to sit down and talk, despite what his "haters" were saying—and cares very little about the actual results.
I have read a few opinions online about the perception of the United States, and that China is working hard to come across as the controlled and predictable party while the United States comes across as unpredictable and uncontrolled. I imagine that they definitely have a keen interest in the outcome of this summit. If both nations wish to avoid the Thucydides Trap then I think this summit will definitely need to have a successful and positive outcome.
For others:
The Thucydides Trap - When a rising power challenges the established leader of the international order conflict often ensues.
Further reading: http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/09/the-thucydides-trap/
The overriding question is who is writing the peace: Is it China, or the US+allies? We've worked steadily with our allies in the region to put ourselves in a position where we could write what peacetime looks like. The problem has been that aspects of what's purely in the US interest for peacetime might be antithetical to what China's interests are.
Achieving an end to the Korean War is a noble objective, but losing the peace could be disastrous a lot longer than the armistice lasted. Without an ambassador to South Korea and a gutted State Dept. after Tillerson was sacked via twitter, I'm not sure the US is firing on all cylinders for this level of negotiation.
"Porque no los dos?" The whole point of a deal or treaty is that it's a compromise. Both parties/sides make concessions to gain positive outcomes.
This premise is faulty.
Yeah, I don't know if the germans would call the Treaty of Versailles a compromise.
It could be called a compromise, if you count give us what we want and we will stop killing you as a compromise.
I lived in South Korea in the early 1990s as a dependant of a military family. I enjoyed it tremendously. I visited a bunch of places, including near the DMZ. I loved my experience, and was delighted by the people (many of whom at that point still had living relatives in NK.) I also, for various reasons, endured many, many, MANY discussions about NK between service people from different armed forces.
I am not going to touch any of those discussions. But I will say that this is not far fetched, exaggerated, or uncommon in any way. The conflict about trimming the tree in the DMZ really happened.
I live in Hawaii and was here when everone thought there would be nukes on their way. I wasn't particularly fussed. First of all, I believed that the cons out weight the pros for NK at the time. Second, even if stupidity won for the day, either I would be dead or not. Probably not, because of the placement of my house vs the mountain ranges and the tradewinds. Either way, what I would need to do would be self evident: get on with my life.
I don't currently believe NK to be at a place where negotiations would be fruitful. But I remember the Berlin Wall coming down, so I'm not going to scoff. I wouldn't mind a compare and contrast between the aftermath of that event and what peace with NK would bring.
Trump has shown himself on more occasions than not to be an exceptionally clumsy and heavy-footed diplomat; perhaps rivalled only by Boris Johnson. I don't see too much reason for optimism.
I think that Trump's policy re:North Korea is one of the very few areas that a majority of polled Americans are supportive of him. The reason why is simple: his approach has coincided with results. Now whether his approached caused the results or the opportunity for our strategic rivals to get the best deal possible caused the results, that's a question for historians who will have access to more records and hopefully 30-40 years of hindsight to work with.
I hope for the best, but on the heels of his walking away from G7 summit commitments he apparently had already agreed to because he doesn't like Justin Trudeau's eyebrow or something, I have to admit that I'm not sure he is the best foot forward we Americans can be bringing to the negotiating table.
lol, really? :P
My understanding of the G7 departure was because... he had to get to singapore. My understanding of the dispute is because of tarriffs being unfair presently, and because of Trudeau saying things that were not true. But I admittedly haven't kept up with the matter very closely.
I will say, his eyebrows in that one video do look very strange, but I think it may just be the angle. Fidel Castro had a similar eyebrow shape, so it isn't outside the realm of possibility that they are not fake. :P
I'm pretty sure the reference to Trudeau's eyebrow was a joke. It's meant to point out that sometimes Trump's reasons for doing things can be either so minor or so incomprehensible that it might as well be the fact that he disliked someone's eyebrow.
I understand that you're a supporter of his but, from an outside point of view, he's extremely unpredictable. Noone knows which way he'll jump - or even whether he'll stay wherever he lands. It's very difficult to manage international diplomacy on that basis.
It was. It was also a reference to a social media claim about the veracity of his eyebrow.
Yeah, Trump never said anything about anyone's eyebrows to my knowledge (size of their hands however...), G7 or otherwise. As @Algernon_Asimov guessed, I was joking a bit there. The joke was meant to illustrate how capricious Trump has been with ... actually, just about everything.
It's not the best source (and it is an opinion piece), and since we're a little off topic I'm reluctant to go too in-depth anyway, but here's a decent bullet-point list of the order of events at the G7 conference. That I agree it is terribly silly to be surprised at Canadian planned counter-tariffs going into effect on July 1st is incidental.