Will North Korea offer up a deal that includes no nukes on the peninsula - and no catches?

North Korea has expressed a desire for the “complete denuclearisation” of the Korean peninsula without attaching preconditions such as the withdrawal of US troops, the South Korean president has said.

The statement, unconfirmed by North Korea, comes before a summit between the leaders of the two countries on 27 April, to be followed in May or June by a meeting between Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, and Donald Trump.

The US president on Wednesday pledged to meet Kim “in the coming weeks” but said he was prepared to walk away if the talks were not fruitful.

The key question at any summit between Trump and Kim is whether the North Korean leader is serious about dismantling his regime’s nuclear weapons, and what he would demand from the US in return.

The South Korean president, Moon Jae-in, told reporters that North Korea had not “attached any conditions that the US cannot accept, such as the withdrawal of American troops from South Korea. All they are expressing is the end of hostile policies against North Korea, followed by a guarantee of security.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/19/north-korea-wants-complete-denuclearisation-says-seoul

And - does anybody think Trump could let such a deal go through smoothly without throwing in some of his trademark drama?

Trump's sole tactic is to walk away from the table.  So, this presumes that everyone at the table wants something that is valuable to them.

In business the goods are very obvious.  Everybody needs housing, so if you are selling apartments in New York City, the goods are easy.  But in politics the goods often have to be cultivated.  Trump has no talent in cultivating interest or attraction.

You can't walk away from an arms length negotiation where you have nothing the other side wants.  It has no effect.  They'll shrug and be on their way.

The success of North Korean negotiations depends upon what Kim wants.

I get the feeling that NK is also trying to play China off in these negotiations
I think NK is threatening China to Allow the US expansion in the region, trying to force China to unequivocally back NK should it continue it's nuke program.

Original Quill wrote:Trump's sole tactic is to walk away from the table.  So, this presumes that everyone at the table wants something that is valuable to them.

In business the goods are very obvious.  Everybody needs housing, so if you are selling apartments in New York City, the goods are easy.  But in politics the goods often have to be cultivated.  Trump has no talent in cultivating interest or attraction.

You can't walk away from an arms length negotiation where you have nothing the other side wants.  It has no effect.  They'll shrug and be on their way.

The success of North Korean negotiations depends upon what Kim wants.

I agree, Trump is basically trying to insert himself into this so he can claim some achievement (and let's be fair, peace on the Korean peninsula would be a BFD).

At best, he gets to claim he got the wheels in motion, and some might believe him. But at worst, he falls prey to his ego yet again and manages to fuck it all up.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Trump's sole tactic is to walk away from the table.  So, this presumes that everyone at the table wants something that is valuable to them.

In business the goods are very obvious.  Everybody needs housing, so if you are selling apartments in New York City, the goods are easy.  But in politics the goods often have to be cultivated.  Trump has no talent in cultivating interest or attraction.

You can't walk away from an arms length negotiation where you have nothing the other side wants.  It has no effect.  They'll shrug and be on their way.

The success of North Korean negotiations depends upon what Kim wants.

I agree, Trump is basically trying to insert himself into this so he can claim some achievement (and let's be fair, peace on the Korean peninsula would be a BFD).

At best, he gets to claim he got the wheels in motion, and some might believe him. But at worst, he falls prey to his ego yet again and manages to fuck it all up.

Yes, when Trump touts how past presidents have been unable to settle things with N. Korea, he is setting up to declare himself the winner.

But he can't pull it off. Not only will his dog 'n pony tactic fail, but he will try to redefine victory when he fails. He is one sleazy bastard.

[*]Decision to freeze tests starting Saturday was made at meeting of party leaders
[*]Kim said he'd made move as weaponization of nuclear  missiles now 'completed'
[*]Cheeto-Faced Ferret-Wearing Shit Gibbon is due to meet Kim soon and welcomed the decision in a tweet
[*]Also comes days before summit between Kim and South's President Moon Jae-in


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5640473/North-Korea-suspends-nuclear-long-range-missile-tests.html#ixzz5DGlxBEo7 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

North Korea has played this game before.  Appear to give concessions, in order to get a relaxation of sanctions.  Then play on the side.

This is an old game, at which trump is a novice. His one-trick gambit of slamming a fist on the table and leaving the negotiations will result only in his absence from the negotiations.

Original Quill wrote:North Korea has played this game before.  Appear to give concessions, in order to get a relaxation of sanctions.  Then play on the side.

This is an old game, at which trump is a novice.

The question is though, did you back Clinton, when he claimed to have stopped Korea obtaining Nuke weapons with a deal?

Did you make all the same claims, that you are doing now?

I doubt Trump will succeed, but imagine what if eh, that he did?

What would you say then? How gut wrenching would that be for you, to admit he actually did something right?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:North Korea has played this game before.  Appear to give concessions, in order to get a relaxation of sanctions.  Then play on the side.

This is an old game, at which trump is a novice.

The question is though, did you back Clinton, when he claimed to have stopped Korea obtaining Nuke weapons with a deal?

Did you make all the same claims, that you are doing now?

I don't know.  I'm not even sure I voted for Clinton, I can't remember.  What difference do my sympathies make? I wasn't involved with North Korea.

Didge wrote:I doubt Trump will succeed, but imagine what if eh, that he did?

What would you say then? How gut wrenching would that be for you, to admit he actually did something right?

Blind, stupid luck.  Trump's one-trick gambit doesn't work with a penniless adversary.  It sure won't work on a disingenuous tricksters who doesn't care if he plays his 'walk-away' ploy.  Kim's situation is, what's to lose?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


The question is though, did you back Clinton, when he claimed to have stopped Korea obtaining Nuke weapons with a deal?

Did you make all the same claims, that you are doing now?

I don't know.  I'm not even sure I voted for Clinton, I can't remember.  What difference does it make?

Didge wrote:It makes all the difference, that you now suddenly claim amnesia over a Democrat President who claimed to have stopped North Korea coming Nuclear. In other words, its very interesting that you now claim you did not vote for Clinton, the most popular President in years, even after his sex scandals. Are you claiming you voted Republican at the time?

Blind, stupid luck.  Trump's one-trick gambit doesn't work with a penniless adversary.  It sure won't work on a disingenuous tricksters who doesn't care if he plays his 'walk-away' ploy.  Kim's situation is, what's to lose?

But again, what if he does pull this off?

Will you then applaud this unhinged xenophobe for bringing peace to Korea?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't know.  I'm not even sure I voted for Clinton, I can't remember.  What difference does it make?



Blind, stupid luck.  Trump's one-trick gambit doesn't work with a penniless adversary.  It sure won't work on a disingenuous tricksters who doesn't care if he plays his 'walk-away' ploy.  Kim's situation is, what's to lose?

But again, what if he does pull this off?

Will you then applaud this unhinged xenophobe for bringing peace to Korea?

Will I applaud blind, stupid luck? No. I will chalk it up to blind, stupid luck.

But it's like dreaming about what you will do if you win the lottery. It'll never happen. Why bother?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


But again, what if he does pull this off?

Will you then applaud this unhinged xenophobe for bringing peace to Korea?

Will I applaud blind, stupid luck?  No.  I will chalk it up to blind, stupid luck.

But it's like dreaming about what you will do if you win the lottery.  It'll never happen.  Why bother?

Ohhhhh, so its luck, if its Trump?

Do you use such reasoning when Obama was President and made great forward domestic changes in the US?

Well, as much as I think Trump is an unhinged loon. Its actually showing how effective it can be. The moment Trump did not bow down to Putin threats, is the moment we saw North Korea back down. Is that not a coincidence?

If Obama had held a stronger foreigner policy line, there would not be this mess, the world is in. It takes an unhinged loon, to bring another unhinged loon to the negotiation table.

I think Putin, is now regreeting the monster he created in helping elect Trump.

+1

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Will I applaud blind, stupid luck?  No.  I will chalk it up to blind, stupid luck.

But it's like dreaming about what you will do if you win the lottery.  It'll never happen.  Why bother?

Ohhhhh, so its luck, if its Trump?

Do you use such reasoning when Obama was President and made great forward domestic changes in the US?

No, Obama didn't even try.  Nor has anyone going back to Eisenhower.  The North Koreans use any peace accord or break in hostilities as a resource.  They will use it to restock while breaking the rules.  Administrations have stopped trying.

Now, comes Trump.  He, like you, are so unschooled in history that he thinks North Korean promises are somehow a break through.  Poor chump...he'll learn.

Didge wrote:Well, as much as I think Trump is an unhinged loon. Its actually showing how effective it can be. The moment Trump did not bow down to Putin threats, is the moment we saw North Korea back down. Is that not a coincidence?

You'll learn soon, as well.

Didge wrote:If Obama had held a stronger foreigner policy line, there would not be this mess, the world is in. It takes an unhinged loon, to bring another unhinged loon to the negotiation table.

I think Putin, is now regreeting the monster he created in helping elect Trump.

The only difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama listens to his advisers.  Donald has to break his toys before he learns.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Ohhhhh, so its luck, if its Trump?

Do you use such reasoning when Obama was President and made great forward domestic changes in the US?

No, Obama didn't even try.  Nor has anyone going back to Eisenhower.  The North Koreans use any peace accord or break in hostilities as a resource.  They will use it to restock while breaking the rules.  Administrations have stopped trying.

Now, comes Trump.  He, like you, are so unschooled in history that he thinks North Korean promises are somehow a break through.  Poor chump...he'll learn.

Didge wrote:Clinton certainly did try.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/08/09/history-lesson-why-did-bill-clintons-north-korea-deal-fail/?utm_term=.b1a564df0edf

lol, you claim I am unschooled in history, when I constantly school you on the subject
Thanks for the laugh, as that was a classic

You'll learn soon, as well.

Didge wrote:Will I?

The only difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama listens to his advisers.  Donald has to break his toys before he learns.

Like I said, I think Trump is an unhinged loon and yet, by standing up to Putin, we now have seen North Korea sue for peace. What it shows is most of these leaders in North Korea and Russia play a very poor bluff game. Obama everytime fell for their bluffs and always backed down. Trump though has not.

So lets see what comes of this

President Bill Clinton took the podium on October 18, 1994, with a speech that reads like a sigh of relief—the announcement of a landmark nuclear agreement between the United States and North Korea. “This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world,” he assured the nation. Called the Agreed Framework, it was designed to put the brakes on North Korea’s nuclear program, and it promised to put an end to years of increasing nuclear tension, including a near war, to a halt.

“This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula,” Clinton said. “It does not rely on trust.” In exchange for North Korea ending its nuclear weapons program, the United States agreed to normalize relations with the nation—and both agreed to pursue “formal assurances” not to use nukes against one another.

The agreement—forged against all odds in an environment of fear and worry—seemed bulletproof. So why did it fail just a few years later? The reasons why are rooted in behind-the-scenes negotiations and international mistrust.

https://www.history.com/news/north-korea-nuclear-deal-bill-clinton-agreed-framework

Now Obama made a very similar deal with Iran

I wonder how that one will pan out in the end

Didge wrote:President Bill Clinton took the podium on October 18, 1994, with a speech that reads like a sigh of relief—the announcement of a landmark nuclear agreement between the United States and North Korea. “This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world,” he assured the nation. Called the Agreed Framework, it was designed to put the brakes on North Korea’s nuclear program, and it promised to put an end to years of increasing nuclear tension, including a near war, to a halt.

“This agreement represents the first step on the road to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula,” Clinton said. “It does not rely on trust.” In exchange for North Korea ending its nuclear weapons program, the United States agreed to normalize relations with the nation—and both agreed to pursue “formal assurances” not to use nukes against one another.

The agreement—forged against all odds in an environment of fear and worry—seemed bulletproof. So why did it fail just a few years later? The reasons why are rooted in behind-the-scenes negotiations and international mistrust.

https://www.history.com/news/north-korea-nuclear-deal-bill-clinton-agreed-framework

Now Obama made a very similar deal with Iran

I wonder how that one will pan out in the end

You are raising two different situations: Iran and North Korea.  The Iran accord was not to stop nuclear weapons development, but to buy time, as former CIA Director Michael Hayden clearly stated:

CIA Director Michael Hayden wrote:“We did sign up, in fact, to continued nuclear enrichment in Iran. I think that’s a given,” Hayden said. “What we’re going to get out of it… is how much of a gap can you put between the program they’re allowed to retain and their ability to have a weapon. This isn’t about stopping it; it’s about creating that time.”  http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/former-cia-director-iran-deal-buys-time

We have no idea what a deal with North Korea will look like, because Trump has no strategy going into talks.  He doesn't know what he wants; how can we?  How can the world know?  How can North Korea know?  Indeed, that's your first clue that North Korea doesn't give a shit what he wants, they just want to create another safe-harbor (like Clinton did) during which North Korea can gather in the benefits while cheating on the side.

Didge, you can't stop knowledge.  Every encyclopedia in print has information by which one can build a nuclear weapon.  The difficulty is in pulling together the resources.  That can be slowed down.

And you are just repeating yourself Quill

I keep and open mind on North Korea getting rid of its nukes

I don't think so. If anything, I'm repeating Michael Hayden.

North Korea will not get rid of it's nukes, without something substantial in return. That won't come from us, least of all from Trump who is in the midst of clamping down on trade with China and it's allies.

Ask yourself: what can we offer North Korea? Maybe foreign aid; but surely not foreign trade. They are across the ideological divide from us.

Didge wrote:Like I said, I think Trump is an unhinged loon and yet, by standing up to Putin, we now have seen North Korea sue for peace. What it shows is most of these leaders in North Korea and Russia play a very poor bluff game. Obama everytime fell for their bluffs and always backed down. Trump though has not.

North Korea...sue for peace?  How?  N. Korea has finished with it's testing and the one testing ground it is giving up is too close to Thailand...the neighbors have been complaining about all the noise and the parties.

North Korea has given up nothing.  Kim is playing Trump, by capitalizing on circumstances that would have come about anyway.  Right now pussy-grabber has neither the experience, nor the advisers to know what is what.  He's being played by a child.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Like I said, I think Trump is an unhinged loon and yet, by standing up to Putin, we now have seen North Korea sue for peace. What it shows is most of these leaders in North Korea and Russia play a very poor bluff game. Obama everytime fell for their bluffs and always backed down. Trump though has not.

North Korea...sue for peace?  How?  N. Korea has finished with it's testing and the one testing ground it is giving up is too close to Thailand...the neighbors have been complaining about all the noise and the parties.

North Korea has given up nothing.  Kim is playing Trump, by capitalizing on circumstances that would have come about anyway.  Right now pussy-grabber has neither the experience, nor the advisers to know what is what.  He's being played by a child.

Well lets wait and see, what are you so scared of?

Being wrong?