As expected, the "Orange Man Bad" NPCs are out in force gloating over President Trump's so-called "failure" to reach a joint agreement with Kim Jong Un yesterday in Hanoi, Vietnam, following their historical first meeting in Singapore last June, thus apparently diminishing Trump's chances of winning the Nobel Peace Prize.
According to Trump, a joint agreement couldn't be reached because Kim wanted Trump to commit to a deal in which U.S. sanctions against North Korea would be lifted completely while refusing to acquiesce to the proposals laid forward by Trump (supposedly dismantling more than just the Yongbyon nuclear facility.)
From the sources I've read, Kim was open to "permanently and completely" dismantling North Korea's primary and arguably most important nuclear facility in the country in Yongbyon. This, to Kim, was enough concession on his part.
So Trump wanted more, or did he?
I wrote about the Trump/Kim Summit in Singapore last year, and I want to highlight an important point I made in that post which may be the reason why further reconciliation between the two came to a standstill this time round:
I wrote last year:
"What's scary is that key members in Trump's cabinet, particularly his National Security Advisor, John Bolton, may hinder that process (towards greater reconciliation). Bolton, the raging Neocon that he is, is known to be a strong advocate for regime change, and thanks to him - the Summit was almost called off. What's even scarier is that Bolton isn't a stupid man at all. He probably knew that the Summit wasn't going to bring about radical changes immediately, and therefore sat idly by. If Bolton doesn't hold too much sway over Trump's foreign policy decisions in the coming months - then the Summit can be a force for something good. If not, the Summit may soon be forgotten."
It appears that my prediction & fears regarding John Bolton being a hindrance to further reconciliation may not be unfounded.
Former Australian Ambassaddor to South Korea, Richard Broinowski told the Special Broadcasting Service, an Australian public broadcasting radio, online and television network, that he has insider sources who heard Bolton telling Trump "You should not just insist on them abolishing their whole nuclear arsenal, but getting rid of their biological and chemical warfare arsenal as well."
The article by the Special Broadcasting Service goes on to say both Trump and Kim were unprepared for this, and Kim simply said that the matter wasn't "on the agenda", and rather than dive into something unexpected (probably put to him at the last minute so irresponsibly by Bolton), Trump decided to "walk away" from the negotiating table.
Does this then mean that Trump has "lost", as so many news sources are reporting?
I don't think so.
If the Special Broadcasting Service report above is accurate, Trump shouldn't have been swayed by Bolton, but Trump also shouldn't have dived into something he wasn't sure about at that point of time. Trump put it brilliantly yesterday during the press conference when he said "I'd rather much do it right, than do it fast." By "walking away" from the negotiating table, Trump simply showed that he wasn't going to fold under pressure or capitulate. The Mainstream Media, of course, spins this as a loss for Trump because "Orange Man Bad" is the fundamental NPC creed that the Mainstream Media subscribes to.
Either way, Trump was going to get bashed. If Trump had signed a joint agreement yesterday, the Mainstream Media would have been up in arms about how weak he was and that he folded and capitulated. Trump didn't sign a joint agreement, and the liberal consensus now is that he "lost". Furthermore, the Mainstream Media is already painting the situation as bleakly as it possibly can; as though there is no longer any hope for further reconciliation. This is patently false. According to this Nikkei Asian Review article, North Korea's main news agency, The Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), has reported that "Our majestic supreme leader and President Trump agreed to continue to have productive talks on matters discussed at the Hanoi summit, keeping relations closely for the considerable development in the denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and the relations between the D.P.R.K. and the U.S.,"
Things aren't dramatically worsened because of the Hanoi Summit, as much as the Liberal Media wishes it was. Henry Olsen, a contributor to the Washington Post, was careful to point out that "a deal might still get done" some time in the future. Furthermore, Trump was very careful with his words at the press conference, as Olsen points out; choosing not to use damning words with regards to Kim, thus indicating that the relationship between them hasn't soured, and that there is potential for more talks in the future. Based on what we know so far about Trump's personality, had the negotiations gone completely awry - he would have unleashed a barrage of insults in the ensuing conference.
Let's also not forget that even though the Summit ended in a stalemate, the very gesture itself of wanting to talk; heck, even the idea of a U.S. liaison office in North Korea being discussed, is enough reason to write off the idea that Trump "lost". Willing to come to the negotiating table is a win in itself. More importantly, Kim answered questions from foreign journalists publicly for the first time in an extremely surprising and unprecedented move. This is significant, and is highly indicative of Kim's willingness to engage with the world.
Michael Malice said it best during his livestream coverage of the Summit:
"It's amazing. When Trump bombs Syria, all the talking heads say "He's finally presidential! He's finally wearing the stripes!" So when he bombs another country, it's great, but when he tries diplomacy and hits a dead end, it's like "Oh, he's a loser." So it's great when you're blowing things up, but if you're sitting down with someone and you're talking.. and remember how they [the North Koreans] were talking about how they were going to nuke Guam, and how they sentenced Trump to death, and all this other shit?! They are not doing that anymore. Isn't de-escalation of rhetoric, and de-escalation of actions (no missile tests) - isn't that what the goal is?"
Michael Malice hits the nail right on its head here. Yes, denuclearization is one of the primary goals of the talks, but so is de-escalation, and this latter purpose has been fulfilled for the time being; there has not been a single missile test since the Singapore Summit. This entire process is obviously going to take some time. Trump knew it from the very start, and so did Kim. And when Trump said at the press conference that so many of his predecessors had a chance to do something with North Korea during their tenures and did absolutely nothing, he's right. Obama didn't do anything to de-escalate tensions, and neither did Bush, or anyone else before them for that matter.
To simply write off Trump as a failure, or that he "lost", simply because he walked away from the negotiating table, is pure NPC rhetoric.
No comments:
Post a Comment