Kate,
You must not have listened to the discussions I posted. If you had, you couldn't have written, "What's not to like?"
For example, in the Richard Engel link, where Engel talks about how the military of both the US and the S. Korean were stunned by Trump saying that he would cancel their joint exercises in order to "save money". They consider those exercises "vital" to ensure that the two armies will work together and it won't really save much money at any rate, as Farqas says, since S.K. picks up half the cost of keeping the troops there.
Starting at about the 4:30 minute mark, Richard Haas asks Engel about how committed the president of S.K. is to the process; Engel says he is very committed. Haas's question comes after Engel painted the following picture: Six months ago, the talk was about war and people were protesting. The Olympics gave their president an opening to contact Kim and he pushed for these talks. That is why Kim's sister went to the Olympics, you may recall. Now, people are relieved and he is expected to do well in elections that will be held tomorrow. Haas asks Engel to imagine a scenario where the talks don't go well and it turns out that what Kim means by denuclearization is unacceptable to the US, so the US says sanctions must be kept in place. Haas asks, Is S. Korea so committed to the peace process that could it create a crisis for President Moon such that he would feel compelled to break with Trump and move closer to China or Russia? Engel said it is possible, he has thrown all of his chips in the peace camp and will be under enormous pressure to fulfill its promise. If the peace process falls apart, he will be put in an extremely uncomfortable position. All of this gives N.K. extraordinary leverage in the talks as they know that S.K. is unconditionally committed to complete this process.
That is just one problem, typical of the kind of problem that occurs when the leader doesn't have a plan and doesn't actually understand either the history or the current situation in Korea. There are many others. Kim gave Trump three things: he said he would return some bodies of dead Westerners, he allowed Trump supporters like you to claim he is brilliant, and he said he would talk more later about peace and an undefined denuclearization of the peninsula.
In return, Kim got several things far more concrete: Trump said he would halt military exercises ("war games") and consider taking troops out of S.K., gave Kim some sort of undefined "security guarantees," China has already appealed to the UN to lessen sanctions, and Kim has had his reputation burnished and cleansed. Trump took Kim's line when he characterized the exercises as "provocative". The Pentagon says that they are "defensive". Incredibly, Trump spoke better of Kim than he and his advisers spoke of Trudeau. Kim is a criminal (see my next post). The document that they signed is absurdly vague, somewhat equivalent to Rodney King's "Can't we all just get along?" It was obviously drafted in less than half an hour and commits no one to anything concrete.
What Trump is doing is fragmenting the Atlantic alliance that has been strong for decades after WWII. An alliance and a world order that has served the US well. If others were "taking advantage" of the US, as Trump claims, it is a funny kind of taking advantage. Russia and China have wanted to break this up for years and now Trump is doing it for them. What do you think Putin was talking about in Beijing while Trump was in Singapore? They are ecstatic about Trump.
It won't happen overnight, but the Europeans will begin to make plans for how to live without the dollar as the reserve currency now and how to act in a world with a maverick US. This is not a good thing. Trump is either an idiot or a stooge for Putin for reasons still not completely known. Or both.
What's not to like? Plenty. |
