
Two Koreas Agree to End War This Year, Pursue Denuclearization - almost_usual
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-27/two-koreas-agree-to-end-war-this-year-pursue-denuclearization
======
TorKlingberg
Am I the only one who thinks this is happening mainly because of political
shifts in South Korea? 2013-2017 the South Korean president was Park Geun-hye
of the conservative Saenuri Party. They generally have a hostile attitude
towards North Korea. In late 2016 she had a major scandal, was impeached, and
Moon Jae-in of the more liberal Democratic Party won. They are generally more
willing no talk to the North. He is the person meeting Kim today.

~~~
vivekd
I would doubt this because from 1998 to 2008 Korea has had liberal presidents
who had a policy of engagement towards North Korea and we didn't get peace in
that time.

While getting rid of Park Geun-Hye certainly made this easier - I think this
has more to do with Kim Jong Un and also the warm reception N. Korea got at
the recent winter Olympics in South Korea.

That said I would be cautious how far this would go. I suspect a lot of N.
Koreas militaristic acts and statements over the years is not because of any
actual desire but war, but just posturing to help in negotiations over tariffs
and aid.

I am also going to take the unpopular opinion and say that Trump does deserve
some credit. Under many past Presidents, the N. Korean government knew America
would never use military force and acted accordingly. Under Trump, they have
good reason to be concerned about the possibility of military force and are
taking a more cautious and reconciliatory approach. I think the North Koreans
are well aware that militaristic posturing won't get them very far with Trump
the way it did with past presidents.

~~~
deusofnull
Reunification efforts in the late 1990s and early 2000s were complicated by
the shift in US Policy from the Clinton to Bush Admin. Clinton's admin wanted
to support the so called Sunshine Policy, which favored moving towards
reunification.

For the US's part, they agreed to not re apply new sanctions on the North as
long as the North continued to operate within the parameters of their Sunshine
Policy negotiated with the South. That was what was happening, but then Bush
came into office and this policy changed. New sanctions were put upon DPRK and
they would eventually be included in the Bush Admin's "Axis of Evil" (Iran,
Iraq, and North Korea).

This caused the North to go back on its agreements and the Sunshine Policy as
a whole, and did also align with more conservative governments in South Korea.

All that said, I was smiling so big last night seeing the two leaders shaking
hands, smiling themselves. A reunification of the 2 Koreas would be an
absolute blessing upon the world. Many people in the North and South long to
be reunited. Not to mention the ease of so many tensions in SE Asia that would
come from 1 Korea.

~~~
ConceptJunkie
Not to mention the fact that this can lead to easing the tremendous suffering
of the people of North Korea. South Korea is an exciting country that is
accomplishing some really cool stuff, and it would be great if the residents
of the North to get a chance to participate in growing their prosperity
instead of forever starving in a totalitarian nightmare.

------
sudosteph
I never thought I'd see this happen. I know it's Orwellian, but the concept of
permanent cold war didn't seem that unlikely. It's weird to think that my
grandfather fought in the Korean war and his child and grandchildren all grew
up wondering if and when it was going to come to a head again. Though I guess
in the grand scheme of things, there have been some much longer (and bloodier)
wars in history which are barely a paragraph in history text books today.

I'm not incredibly familiar with the situation as it stands, but is re-
unification a legitimate possibility? I mean, I don't see Kim Jong-Un giving
up power, but I could see them wanting to claim re-unification at least from a
cultural perspective, like they did in the Olympics.

~~~
rtpg
I talked to a "wall expert" in college who mentioned the severe strain East
Germany was on West Germany after reunification, because of the economic
disparity.

Her theory was that reunification of the Koreas would be very messy given the
economic disparity between the two nations, and that SK doesn't want it.

That being said I would hope that NK actually goes along with joint projects
with its neighbors. Not like the aid will stop if they're more amicable.

The politics become a bit less rough if we're still talking about 2 regimes I
think

~~~
maxxxxx
I was in West Germany during and after reunification. It definitely turned out
to be much more difficult and expensive than most people expected. Considering
that East Germany was much wealthier than North Korea I expect building them
up will be even more difficult. Some people will benefit greatly but overall
it will probably a massive expense for South Korea without any benefit for
most citizens.

~~~
root_axis
An end to the looming spectre of war seems like a gigantic benefit to the
citizenry.

~~~
maxxxxx
Sure. But there is a also a big price to pay by regular citizens. From West
Germany it didn't feel like a triumph or something worth celebrating.

------
mlb_hn
North Korea has wanted a peace treaty for some time. E.g. 2016 Rand did an
analysis on North Korea wanting a peace treaty to get the US to withdraw from
South Korea ([https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/05/behind-north-koreas-bid-
fo...](https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/05/behind-north-koreas-bid-for-a-peace-
treaty.html)). They wanted a peace treaty under Kim Jong Un's father as well
([https://www.reuters.com/article/us-korea-north/north-
korea-c...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-korea-north/north-korea-calls-
for-peace-treaty-to-replace-armistice-idUSTRE60A0QV20100111)).

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the reason that WE have refused to sign a
peace treaty for decades is because of the human rights violations in North
Korea. I have no idea how the narrative switched to North Korea wanting a
peace treaty as a concession from them.

~~~
gtm1260
It's interesting that our continued insistence on not signing a peace treaty
because of humans rights violations has allowed them to continue for even
longer.

~~~
mlb_hn
That could be accurate. That's not the point though - the issue is that there
are all these articles being written about North Korea wanting a peace treaty
as if it's something new, when North Korea's always wanted the peace treaty.

~~~
794CD01
Is that really an "issue" if that rewriting of history is what finally brings
peace?

~~~
talltimtom
Yes. People rewriting history is always an issue no matter what the gain.
Should we let Germany erase the holocaust if they donate sufficiently large
sums to charity? Should we forget about the human rights issues in North Korea
just so we can label the current situation peaceful, and pretend they do not
exist?

------
pow_pp_-1_v
I haven't read through all the comments here but so far I haven't seen anyone
give credit to Kim Jong Un. He's probably a pretty smart dude and has been
planning these moves ever since he was a kid. At the end of all this, he will
agree to "denuclearize" by reducing his nuclear stockpile over a very long
time period; promise to stop doing nuclear research etc. In return he will get
a ton of foreign aid, much weakened sanctions against his country and
legitimacy in the international stage.

But who knows. I am no expert.

~~~
malnourish
Sure, give him some credit. In the same breath that he allowed for and
committed atrocities against his people.

~~~
imbokodo
You mean like the massacre of No Gun Ri and the general policy of shooting
civilians in the Korean war? The Gwangju massacre?

Oh you don't mean the atrocities of the dictatorships in the south under the
US military occupation, you mean the north.

~~~
codyb
Just because others have done something doesn’t excuse the behavior of the
individual.

That being said, just because someone has done something horrible doesn’t mean
they can’t do good things.

------
maxxxxx
This reminds me a little of the Gorbachev situation. He thought he could
reform the Soviet Union but only started an uncontrollable process for its
disintegration. Makes me wonder if Kim is just naive thinking he can open up
his country while staying in power or has some smart plan. Personally I think
he not knowingly has started the process of ending his regime.

~~~
hencq
Perhaps. On the other hand, China watched the events in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union with great interest and adapted in a way that kept the Communist
Party in power. Kim might see that as a model instead.

------
amai
Maybe the fact, that North Koreas nuclear test site has collapsed, has
something to do with the progress in the negotiations:

[http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-
defence/article/214...](http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-
defence/article/2143171/north-koreas-nuclear-test-site-has-collapsed-and-may-
be-why-kim-jong-un)

~~~
JBReefer
Aren't test sites just a place you set off the bombs? Seems like the worst
possible place to store anything of value.

------
nl
One should note that North Korea is now in a position where they can appear to
make generous concessions. They are a nuclear power, and there is no way they
will ever give that up, no matter how much they promise they will. They have
done it in the past and will again.

In case it isn't clear, "denuclearization" means the removal of the US nuclear
shield from the Korean peninsular and from Japan.

For those who aren't aware, the current US/Japan alliance guarantees the US
nuclear arsenal will protect Japan (and South Korea)[1]. That is why those
countries haven't pursued their own nuclear arms program.

This will be a big problem.

If North Korea offers to denuclearize then there will be huge pressure on the
US to withdraw from South Korea.

North Korea is utterly untrustworthy on this of course, but that's a hard
argument to make if they appear to be making reasonable concessions.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_umbrella](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_umbrella)

~~~
dis-sys
> If North Korea offers to denuclearize then there will be huge pressure on
> the US to withdraw from South Korea.

then just borrow more money to maintain the presence there.

when US treasury bond yield is reaching 3% and the public debt is more than 20
trillion, who cares about some extra billion $ spent there.

~~~
nl
The pressure will come from elements in the South Korean public, and it’s not
over any financial issues.

~~~
dis-sys
more than 20 trillion public debt as of today, and it is increasing faster.
Eventually, the federal revenue is going to be less than the interests that
need to be paid annually. what US is going to do about it?

explain to debt collectors that some elements in South Korea want US troops
there?

~~~
nl
The financial elements are completely irrelevant here. South Korea already
pays ~1/3 of the cost of the troops there, and it’s relatively low compared to
say the Iraq war.

Roll back some tax cuts if the US is too poor I guess.

------
dantillberg
This is a trap.

South Korea and the United States are politically weak right now -- not
necessarily the leaders, but the political systems are at a low point of unity
and resolve. Neither country really wants to deal with North Korea right now.
People in each country would like this drama to be over, because it feels
dangerous and intractable. The leaders in each country would love to deliver
that feeling to us.

Kim Jong-un has an incredibly strong hand. He has nuclear missiles at his
disposal, with apparently rapid progress toward increasing their range. He
knows that other nations are fearful of those weapons, and that they won't do
anything that risks putting them on the receiving end of even one.

We've had one bold historic headline after another now: Kim Jong-un has
telegraphed a desire to denuclearize and to end the Korean war. He has raised
the hopes of South Koreans and of Americans just enough that they each want a
deal now, and their leaders now _need_ to deliver.

But the price has not yet been negotiated.

What will be the price? Will Kim promise to stop further nuclear development?
Will Kim promise to stop further missile development? Will Kim promise not to
help other states develop nuclear missiles? Will Kim promise not to radically
modernize his military in other ways as the floodgates of trade open?

Promises are inexpensive and reversible. Will he actually take any real steps
to diminish or eliminate his nuclear and military power? I doubt it. Kim's not
an idiot. He only needs to present the illusion.

People in the West seem to believe that Kim has experienced some sort of
rebirth as a student of peace and nonviolence of late. But there's been no
explanation and no demonstration (to my ears) of where that came from. It's
possible perhaps that Xi Jinping whispered wonderful ideas and/or threats in
Kim Jong-un's ear when he visited, but that's opaque to us and media I've read
seems to be ignorant of such potential influence. If Kim were so serious, we
should need him to demonstrate that credibly to us, through actions that are
costly for him to take: in particular, pitching this change of vision directly
and passionately to the populace of North Korea.

Kim Jong-un wants to get out from under the chokehold of heavy trade
sanctions. He wants to be legitimized in the international community as the
leader of a real nation. He wants to modernize both his military and his
nation and his personal life. He probably dreams of visiting Paris and
Manhattan.

It is my belief that he will be able to get these things -- without giving up
nuclear weapons, missiles, nor giving up his political or military power over
North Korea. From Kim's perspective, democratic politicians are weak and
manipulable, and he will find it to be especially true right now.

(edit: s/telescoped/telegraphed/ \-- thanks!)

~~~
hangonhn
That he's been able to do this with South Korea alone without the US at the
table tells you how strong of a hand he has and how weak our hand is.

I think this is a ploy to do two things: 1\. Economic growth for North Korea,
which has been happened to some extend already. 2\. Get the US out of the
Korean Peninsula.

A strong economy will allow NK to develop or buy all sorts of updated
conventional arms. NK is seriously weak here. Their air force is horribly out
of date. I doubt they can actually defeat South Korea in a conventional war
even if the US is not helping SK.

Once the US presence is no longer there, it becomes a lot harder for the US to
re-enter in times of conflict because now NK can threaten us with nuclear
weapons. Most American will not trade Seattle or SF for South Korea.

Unification of Korea is pretty much a non-negotiatable goal for the North
Korean regime. It's been their goal since the start and the reason why the
leading families in NK support the Kim family.

~~~
flycaliguy
I would be careful to underestimate the North's ability to fight a war. You
don't need cutting edge technology with the sort of topography they've got.
Look at a topographic map of North Korea. It's mountain ranges and valleys.
Dense veg, steep drops, spots for tunnels, rapid currents. You could put an
army from the 50s in there and have a hell of a time getting them to quit.

~~~
hangonhn
I don't doubt their ability to defend their own territory and your point about
that is correct. However, I don't see South Korea being the aggressor. If
there is a war, North Korea would be the aggressor and I doubt their current
ability to successfully invade and conquer South Korea. They would have to
acquire new conventional capabilities to do that and a viable economy is
necessary for that development.

------
toblender
I can sense the skepticism in the comments, but this is amazing news!

All those people suffering from lack will have a chance to take part in our
modern abundance.

I can only imagine what will happen when NK opens it's doors to SK fully.
There will be a massive demand for good and services. Exciting times!

------
21
From the Guardian, which can't be accused of being a Trump lover:

> This system of indoctrination and propaganda complicates any official
> announcement of the Trump meeting. An ideological framework must be devised
> to explain the talks with the enemy; and regardless of how they are
> presented, there is an uncomfortable margin for the “infallible” leader to
> be seen to fail in his aims.

> Trump is a volatile opponent who telegraphed his impatience even before the
> two men fixed a place to talk, warning he would walk away if he thought the
> preparations weren’t going anywhere.

> But this unpredictability is the reason there are talks at all. Trump’s
> barrage of verbal and Twitter attacks on North Koreans – which have been
> reported there – led Pyongyang to question if it was, for the first time in
> a generation, facing a US president willing to attack them, experts say.

> Officials there have long calculated that no US president would risk lives
> in Seoul with an attack on the North. But under Trump that is no longer a
> safe assumption, says Andrei Lankov, professor of Korean Studies at Kookmin
> University.

> Kim, like his predecessors, has proved adept at manipulating regional and
> world powers into providing aid and political support while offering little
> in return. Now Kim may at last be forced into making real changes to stave
> off looming political and economic crises.

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/20/north-korea-
py...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/20/north-korea-pyongyang-
kim-jong-un-donald-trump)

~~~
collyw
Is it fair to say that Trump has done more for world peace than Obama now?

~~~
lmm
It'll be 10 years or more before we can really answer that question. Trump's
talks could work out exactly as planned or they could trigger a nuclear war,
or anything in between. Were Obama's calls on Egypt/Libya/Tunisa/... the right
ones for the sake of the long term? It's hard to say we'll ever know for sure.

~~~
misja111
Israel and Saudi Arabia are also getting along surprisingly well lately. See
e.g. [http://www.euronews.com/2017/12/26/view-saudi-israel-
allianc...](http://www.euronews.com/2017/12/26/view-saudi-israel-alliance-
will-be-driving-force-of-new-middle-east)

~~~
elgenie
That's more about counterbalancing Iran in the region and is an "enemy-of-my-
enemy" alliance of convenience. The ability to play Iraq and Iran against each
other that used to exist went by the wayside when Saddam was toppled and got
replaced with nothing.

------
sateesh
Though I think bloombert doesn't carry sensational headlines, the report of
the same event from "The Economist" is rather muted
([https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21741238-moon-jae-and-
ki...](https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21741238-moon-jae-and-kim-jong-un-
seem-have-got-house-fire)), and mentions that results of the meet are
insubstantial.

------
cloudkj
What are the economic implications of a possible/eventual/inevitable
reunification scenario that just become a bit more realistic? South Korea is
already an economic powerhouse in its own right. I'm wondering more from the
point of view of an investor - the public markets don't appear to be
particularly swayed by the prospects, probably because the scenario is still
farfetched and decades away, if possible.

~~~
pm90
You can take a look at what happened after German unification to get an idea
of what it would look like.

To be sure, this is a frequent topic of discussion in South Korea, and this
precise situation has been studied in some detail. The consensus seems to be
to NOT do what the Germans did: It has been economically prohibitive, and East
Germany is still noticeably behind the West in economic development. And the
economic difference between the two Koreas at the moment is far, far greater
today than the difference between the two Germany's in the 1990's. There are
also cultural factors: North Korean workers are used to working under
Communism, will they accept working under a capitalist elite?

That being said, a thought experiment with a Unified Korea is rather
interesting. North Korean labor would perhaps be cheaper; South Korean
companies could outsource manufacturing to the North instead of to China and
still remain globally competitive. The North has vast mineral resources which
could be exploited. A land route to China would increase Korean-Chinese trade
immensely. So generally it would look very good economically.

------
tobyhinloopen
This is just a PR show... the war isn’t over until the NK population is free

~~~
lucb1e
That's a... very American statement. USA has a history of forcing their view
of freedom on other nations, whether they want to or not.

~~~
eggnet
By which country's standards is North Korea free?

Edit: Other than North Korea.

~~~
StavrosK
North Korea's.

I had this argument with someone the other day, that because non-western
countries aren't western doesn't mean their societies aren't free/advanced. I
don't know how someone can argue that getting tortured or killed for your
beliefs, or being treated as basically a possession, or any of these things is
"free, just not in a western morals way".

~~~
rgbrenner
That's an argument of no human rights.. whatever anyone does is now "free".

What about the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Countries have
repeatedly pledged to uphold it.

Just a couple of recent examples:

In 2000, the Millennium Declaration says "We resolve therefore: To respect
fully and uphold the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." It was
unanimously adopted by the UN.

NK wasn't there.. but they were at the World Summit a few years later... where
a similar statement was again adopted unanimously:

 _We reaffirm the solemn commitment of our States to fulfil their obligations
to promote universal respect for and the observance and protection of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms for all in accordance with the Charter,
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other instruments relating to
human rights and international law. The universal nature of these rights and
freedoms is beyond question._

There is a definition of freedom that everyone, including NK, agrees with..
It's defined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

~~~
StavrosK
Yes, agreed. I was arguing with someone on whether homosexual couples should
be allowed to adopt, and one of their arguments was "no, because many
countries in Asia and Africa don't let them either". My response was "if
you're bringing up those countries as examples to follow, you need to
reevaluate your position".

------
foxyv
It'll be interesting to see if the removal of the DMZ will result in mass
migration to the more affluent south. I wonder if they will have NIMBY debates
similar to those we have about the Central American migration to the USA and
Canada.

------
spodek
What changed that North Korea would be serious this time? I can't think of
much. On the contrary, they seem stronger. Maybe they feel they have enough to
negotiate more favorable terms than ever before. Maybe the borders have become
so porous to outside information coming in that they feel change is inevitable
so they'd do better to be in front of it.

I can't get past that on a personal level, the decision-makers, in particular
Kim Jong Un's family, are responsible for many people's suffering and deaths,
which I would think would make them fear too much freedom among the survivors.
People hunted Nazis for generations. Wouldn't the North Korean decision-makers
fear being hunted?

Meanwhile, China has been invaded more than once from the Korean peninsula.
How willing will they be to lose a buffer between themselves and U.S. military
bases?

~~~
mc32
The only significant thing to change was American policy. The admin put great
on China to end smuggling goods across the border and ending the hijinks in
the high seas, basically putting an end to doing an end around sanctions as
well as the bluster.

The South Koreans indeed mention that the US played a major role in having
this happen.

It would be cosmically ironic if peace is achieved in this instance given the
prev admin winning the peace Nobel while achieving no peace at all.

~~~
21
Trump & Kim Jung Un have the highest odds (2/1) of winning the next Nobel
peace prize according to bookies:

[http://sports.coral.co.uk/politics/international/internation...](http://sports.coral.co.uk/politics/international/international/2018-nobel-
peace-prize-9988245.html)

~~~
sanderjd
I never really know how to read these betting sites, but what I see there is
4/1 for Kim Jong-Un and Moon Jae-In.

~~~
21
It wasn't like that two hours ago, they probably updated it due to the news.

[http://news.ladbrokes.com/politics/donald-trump-at-21-to-
win...](http://news.ladbrokes.com/politics/donald-trump-at-21-to-
win-2018-nobel-peace-prize.html)

[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-27/a-nobel-p...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-27/a-nobel-
prize-for-trump-and-kim-is-no-joke)

------
sambull
This won't last, unless the world decides to give up nukes. NK says they've
miniaturized a weapon, have the delivery system and will denuclearize when the
'world' does.

[0] [https://www.reuters.com/video/2018/04/21/north-korea-tv-
says...](https://www.reuters.com/video/2018/04/21/north-korea-tv-says-the-
country-will-sto?videoId=419880939&videoChannel=-13168)

------
noetic_techy
Theory: Xi put massive pressure on North Korea to sue for peace during the
armored train trip Kim made to China because he doesn't want Trump/Pentagon
using it as an excuse for a more immediate military buildup in the region and
the possible nuclearization of SK and Japan in response. Japan was already
starting to flex more. Xi probably threatened to cut them off and even invade
NK if he didn't cool it, they were becoming too much of a liability. I think
China thinks Washington is crazy enough now for a pre-emtive strike (Madman
theory?), and that could drag China into a war they are not ready for. The US
still struck Syria despite Russian threats, its not unfeasible to think the
same applies to NK. China's long term goal is to take back Taiwan, secure
their back yard and ultimately become the hub of Eurasian continent, but they
need to buy a couple more decades time, they are not yet ready for a true face
off. That said however, its also possible this has no effect really, China's
posturing itself is enough of a reason for a buildup and Washington can still
spin it this way. Like I said, buys more time but probably doesn't negate the
inevitable face off. In the end, NK will be authoritarian "modern" like China
is "modern". I can't imagine Kim giving up that much power, just shifting it
to a better model that keeps him in the loop. This was probably the "out" Xi
gave him during his visit. China may even turn this form of authoritarianism
into a commodity they can sell to other dictators. "Look at NK then and now!
See what our political system / AI facial recognition technology can do for
you and your people? Just take a low interest loan from us and we will build
the system for you and show you how to use it. You can be advanced just like
China AND be in power forever!".

It's truly naive to think there is anything less than geo-political calculus
here. If you think this is a momentous occasion, you're fooling yourself with
rose colored glasses.

That being said, I'd love to hear some alternative theories. Shoot me down.
Pop my bubble.

~~~
pm90
Still better than nukes landing in SF/Seattle. Or shelling down Seoul to bits
in 30 mins after the first shots are fired.

I think your theory is plausible. I fail to see how a modern authoritarian
regime could be exported though. Democracies happen because the constituent
people are committed to certain ideas (and a constitution usually); its not
about economics (at least not to a great extent).

~~~
monocasa
> I fail to see how a modern authoritarian regime could be exported though

The US is already in the game with the internet monitoring and censorship
systems we sell to authoritarian regimes. China and the DPRK would just be
stepping up to the plate that already exists.

------
loxs
I have no idea how credible this is, but might be a good explanation on why is
this happening:
[https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/26/north-k...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/04/26/north-
korea-nuclear-test-site-collapses/552974002/)

~~~
cryptonector
It's credible, but it's not the explanation.

The reason this is happening is that DJT made it clear that he would starve NK
until they abandoned their nukes. Then he made it clear to China that the US
would hit China's pocket book real hard if they did not cooperate. Then China
made it clear to Kim that the jig is up. Kim doesn't want to hang from a lamp
post, and neither do his henchmen. So Kim sued for peace.

~~~
loxs
So we are nominating him for some of the next years' peace Nobel prizes? That
would be a fun sight :D

~~~
cryptonector
Peace through strength.

That's not the kind of talk that the Nobel folks like to hear. My guess is
they won't give it to DJT.

~~~
monocasa
I mean, Kissinger got a Nobel Peace Prize.

~~~
cryptonector
Sure, it's possible it will happen.

------
onetimemanytime
NK's Kim would be stupid to give them up, see what happened to a guy a named
Saddam and to another named Muammar. Assad, if not for Russia would have the
next one.

He can slow development down in return for aid...and milk them for decades.

~~~
IIAOPSW
I don't know why you're being downvoted. Obviously everyone wants peace but
realistically doing what you said is the rational thing for NK to do and there
is tons of historical precedent. The only state to ever denuclearize and not
regret it is South Africa.

~~~
bloak
But is today's South Africa the same thing as the previous South Africa which
had nuclear weapons? Are the people who authorised and developed South
Africa's nuclear weapons still living in that part of the world?

~~~
neuro_imager
South Africa didn't 'denuclearise' in the sense of giving up arms.

They had a change to a completely incompetent government who wouldn't know how
to spell 'nuclear' let alone fathom the scientific research and economic and
political strategy required to run such a program.

And given that nuclear scientists and competent political strategists tend to
be smart, they don't hang around in swamps very long.

------
bitL
So Kim's nuclear test site collapsed, likely destroying years of work,
necessary equipment and possibly hit trained human personnel, so he suddenly
went on a "tour for peace". Can't say I am unhappy.

~~~
nsnick
That's not how underground nuclear testing works. The bombs are not developed
or stored inside the mountain where they test. There would have been no one
inside the mountain during the test. The mountain collapsed during the test.
Kim probably thinks that his bombs are powerful enough and reliable enough for
him to have a strong negotiating position.

~~~
bitL
Unless the blast was much stronger and hit distant equipment never meant to be
affected which is difficult to replace. Of course the bombs aren't
developer/stored at a test site, but without proper test site they still might
not be entirely usable in an ICBM or in a submarine, and too large to fit into
a bomber to pose any non-local threat.

------
zpatel
Per Tim beal (Asia expert), the two Koreas making peace is not something that
is in line with western divide and rule policy but washington would not admit
the uneasiness about this..interesting perspective.

------
jakeogh
Stockholm Syndrome is much more common than MSM readers think. Ask yourself,
do you really -know- who writes the news you consume?

NYT is an instructive example:

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-
WEAER49I.png](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CIMxvS-WEAER49I.png)

[http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/VUdcIou.jpg)

Who said they would fix this problem over a year ago? Who ridiculed that
assertion and called his negotiation tactics "dangerous"?

This is amazing to see, both the reality and the denial.

------
auganov
The big story I think many are missing is - what happens if the US+SK manages
to completely flip NK into a pro-western nation.

~~~
aerovistae
"the big story many are missing"? You mean, the fantasy you've concocted that
may or may not come to pass in the long term? Sure, it would be great, I would
be thrilled, but why do you think that would happen anytime soon?

~~~
caf
_Would_ it be great? It seems to me that the day there's a US client state on
the banks of the Yalu River is the day that you know the countdown to the next
world war has begun.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Why would it be a US client state? There's only one reason why: If it felt
threatened by China. If you're China, and you don't want a unified Korea to
have US troops stationed in it, _make it clear that you don 't threaten it._

~~~
caf
The GP wasn't talking about a unified Korea, it said _"...completely flip NK
into a pro-western nation"_.

Regardless, I'm not China, and I'm not commenting on where the blame should be
sheeted home; I am just commenting on the geopolitical instability of the
whole Korean peninsula being dominated by a rival great power to China (the
same is true if it were to be entirely dominated by rival powers to Japan,
incidentally).

------
mychael
The pessimism in this thread is proportional to anti-Trumpism among HN
commenters.

This is a historic moment, but partisanship blinds us from acknowledging
progress.

------
drak0n1c
Many comments trying to explain the US contribution are distracted by Twitter.
That was just a show backing up bigger moves. The US started targeting
specific Russian and Chinese smugglers who have been allowing the North Korean
nobility to skirt the general sanctions for decades.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-
sa...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-sanctions-
chinese-and-russian-companies-and-individuals-for-conducting-business-with-
north-korea/2017/08/22/78992312-8743-11e7-961d-2f373b3977ee_story.html)

Previous administrations avoided taking this extra step, due to realpolitik
cargo cult fears about souring Russia/China and retaliation from a desperate
and truly cut off North Korean elite. President Trump decided to call their
bluff.

------
fuscy
How can the war end? The entire premise was the pursuit of unified true Korea
and I can’t see the North turning a democratic leaf or the South accepting a
totalitarian rule.

What about all the weapons aimed towards the South?

Truly suspicious things are happening.. on both sides.

~~~
pm90
You can always change premises.

While both sides express that premise, I don't see the North Korean Regime
just giving up its power. Perhaps Kim, like Deng Xiaoping, might introduce the
economic reforms that his country really needs.

------
grrmx1
The North isn't going to disarm. Nuclear weapons are their one deterrent
against the US, who have shown in the past that they are willing to invade and
destroy regimes that went through the trouble of disarming (Iraq, Lybia). So
why would he disarm now, if he knows - for a fact - that ten years from now
his goodwill will count for nothing with the next, presumably hostile,
American administration?

My guess is that in the next few months we will see none of the vague promises
made today come to life. This will then be followed by retrenchment, with both
sides blaming the other. I can already see Trump furiously blasting tweets
about the treacherous North. Meanwhile, Kim will go on doing what his family
has been doing for generations - play regional and global powers off each
other in order to get small concessions from each of them, while keeping his
personal dynasty intact.

I hope it's not so, but logic suggests it is. The goal of every state is to
survive. As long as the US poses a legitimate threat to the North, they are
not going to willingly give up their one effective deterrent.

~~~
josefresco
Iraq didn't "voluntarily disarm"

~~~
TheForumTroll
They couldn't disarm of nukes they didn't have.

~~~
grrmx1
I was referring to the arms inspections that were taking place through the
90s. Iraq had some quantity of chemical and biological WMDs that the Americans
were eager to destroy. Iraq let them. And then still got invaded.

I was referring to this, when I said they disarmed.

------
thanatropism
It will be interesting to watch Cuba now.

Like it or not, there is at least a change in tone from Obama to Trump in what
the US is willing to accomodate in Cuba. There's this whole debate going on
about Trump's effect in the Korean process, but Cuba will be a much cleaner
test.

------
borkt
This is making me wonder if Kim Jong Il has been executing officials and
family so rapidly not because they were for peace, but rather because they
were pushing a hard line agenda and he is the one who wanted to make peace
with the south. It would be very interesting if it turns out that all of his
previous public speech was actually forced, and he had to remove a lot of
people before he could push through this agenda. Unlikely I'm sure but not
impossible.

~~~
whb07
I really wonder what his endgame to be is? What if he realizes the jig is up
and he can do a peaceful transition and cash out entirely?

He could be lord emperor of a shit empire or he could be a wealthy
millionaire/billionaire in the real world. All he has to do is walk away from
the mess. I wonder if the South Koreans and US would be down with him doing
that?

~~~
ConceptJunkie
Scott Adams has had a number of very interesting (and I think insightful)
pieces on North Korea and how Trump could be the first person in half a
century to make the geopolitical situation with respect to North Korea better
instead of worse. Here is one of them:

[http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/01/17/north-korea-can-become-
sw...](http://blog.dilbert.com/2018/01/17/north-korea-can-become-switzerland-
east/)

------
caligarn
I’m pretty shocked no one in this thread gives credit to China. Kim Jong Un
did travel to Beijing in an armored car and met with Xi Jinping. China has
also been levying sanctions and restricting tourist travel etc into the
country. China is quite annoyed at what Korea is doing to threaten its Belt
Road plans. And with the Korean conflict potentially over, China has free
reign to dominate Asia, and push up against Japan. No doubt Trump likely
pushed things to a head with his Twitter diplomacy but an extremely globally
ambitious China has to play a role in this as well.

~~~
Macuyiko
Me too, and it wouldn't surprise me if a deal was struck: go for peace, you'll
remain a buffer and own state. We'll support you and will be able to push
investments into your country. Capitalism with socialist characteristics-
style.

------
golergka
Trump's madman tactic turned out to be much more effective than everyone gave
him credit for. Who would have thought.

~~~
louhike
Maybe it's giving it too much credit to say it happened because of him or that
it was what he planned.

~~~
frockington
South Korea thanked him and said he had a big role. It's definitely not 100%
on him but he had a large role

~~~
lightbyte
The only thing that drives him is praise, seems like an easy way to suck up to
him regardless of what he actually did

------
gaius
I expect this will be a chapter in The Art Of The Deal vol II

~~~
fnord123
I'm very naive of NK/SK politics but I do wonder how much of this was
influenced by installation of John Bolton who is absolutely frothing at the
mouth for a war with NK.

~~~
creaghpatr
Or Mike Pompeo, who secretly met with Kim before being confirmed as Secretary
of State.

------
elvirs
I think, unfortunately, all of this is just a show put on by NK because and
Iran has paid them to do it. In the first week of May lifting US sanctions off
Iran has to be renewed and Trump was 99% expected not to renew lifting those
sanctions (a process started by Obama). Now by making this move NK is going to
make US look like an unreliable peacemaker if Trump decides not to extend
sanctions lifting off Iran.

------
MH15
It all becomes obvious now. I told people for years that Kim Jong Un wouldn't
have ever built his nuclear arsenal if the entire first world hadn't believed
he was stupid. However, only recently I (and others) have been starting to
think about the long term- if the two Koreas manage to build a lasting peace
what does that make Kim Jong Un? Literally the greatest leader North Korea has
ever had. It will also be interesting to see how far modernization goes in
North Korea. Will he actually address his human rights issues or will nothing
really change?

Aside, I can see Trump using this in his 2020 campaign if this plays out in an
American way. Do you think this could be a platform?

~~~
mstade
Given Trump’s base, I’d be surprised if they gave two cents about what happens
on the other side of the world.

------
indescions_2018
Massive. Overnight the calculus has shifted from containment to re-
unification. The blue "Peninsula Flag" under which athletes of both nations
marched in the Olympics was indeed prescient. Despite its interpretation in NK
news broadcasts as a symbol of "autonomous unification". With the historical
inevitability of the masses in the south adopting a revolutionary
consciousness and being absorbed into the north. Today, we can take it to be a
universal symbol of peace.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Unification_Flag](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Unification_Flag)

Here at home, it gives Trump the necessary political capital going into
primary season and the Midterm congressional elections. And perhaps even a
shared Nobel. But low key bragging rights may actually belong to Xi. If NK
does liberalize, it will be Beijing providing the investment.

"May you live in interesting times" indeed ;)

~~~
happyrock
> With the historical inevitability of the masses in the south adopting a
> revolutionary consciousness and being absorbed into the north.

Please explain. Why would this be "inevitable"?

