May 31, 2019

"He was accused of spying for the United States for poorly reporting on the negotiations without properly grasping U.S. intentions."

He = Kim Hyok Chol, who was the head negotiator for the summit between Kim Jong Un and President Trump, and who, it seems, was executed in March. The quote in the post title comes from an unidentified source.

ADDED: Who knows? Maybe it's just a "death recorded."

UPDATE, June 4: "The report's veracity was called into question Sunday after North Korean state media reported that Kim Yong Chol attended an art performance alongside Kim Jong Un. An invitation to join to join the North Korean leader in public would likely not be extended to someone who had fallen out of favor" (CNN). My "Who knows?" above was written just a few minutes after the original post, so I was dubious about this story from the start.

100 comments:

rcocean said...

Its too bad Trump can't execute Mueller for his bad report. Sads.

Lawrence Person said...

It seems that underestimating and being unable to read Donald Trump is a global malady. Only in North Korea do they kill you for it.

Good thing, too, or all the leaders of the Democratic Party and three-quarters of the media (but I repeat myself) would be dead...

MikeR said...

Scott Adams predicted this. But, as yet he doesn't believe the story. https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1134451453802700803

Darrell said...

The Press killed him. They were after Trump.

MikeR said...

@rcocean "Its too bad Trump can't execute Mueller for his bad report. Sads." Actually, I think Mueller's Report + Barr's response is the best Trump could expect. But it's a good thing that Nancy Pelosi can't execute Mueller.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Norks are still Commie thugs. Can't forget that.

But still, sometimes, ya gotta talk with and negotiate with Commie thugs.

That's life.

rcocean said...

This will certainly encourage the next interpreter to "up his game".

rcocean said...

Stalin shot members of his census bureau for reporting the "Wrong" numbers. That didn't stop FDR from loving him.

Dave Begley said...

Translation. This dead guy couldn't get the sweet deals that the Norks got from prior administrations. Rocketman thinks he can get his way with us and he is wrong with Trump. Trump has shown him a bright future but he MUST get rid of his nukes.

Trump is the toughest President we've had in years. Look what he did with Mexico, what he is doing with China and the Norks. These clowns better learn that Trump is no patsy.

Dave Begley said...

Death recorded. Good one Ann. Send Naomi over to North Korea to work out a deal. She'd be better than John Kerry and Richardson.

EDH said...

Blogger Darrell said...
The Press killed him. They were after Trump.

Close. The Democrats in congress who scheduled the Michael Cohen hearings opposite the summit killed him.

Kim made a low-ball offer based on what he perceived as Trump's domestic weakness and need for a diplomatic breakthrough to change the headlines.

Strategically, Kim would have been an idiot not to pursue the opportunity opened to him by the Democrats.

Trump stood strong and refused.

Democrats tacitly colluded with Kim, people died.

JPS said...

rcocean:

"This will certainly encourage the next interpreter to 'up his game'."

Sadly, Kim seems to take after his late father:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfLbxHktj_Q#t=48s

EDH said...

"He asked what part of the deal you did not understand...

He said he should... fire his translator?"

Curious George said...

Who knows? Maybe it's just a "death recorded."

I thought that was just for sodomites.

Yancey Ward said...

If Progressives could shoot Mueller for not indicting Trump, they would.

wwww said...

Never forget with whom you are dealing. This is the North Korean regime.

narciso said...

See yagoda yezhov and beria, somedays you spin the wheel, other times the wheel spins you

Hagar said...

Five people were executed.

wholelottasplainin' said...

I remain skeptical.

The ROK press is rabidly anti-NORK and often runs sensationalist propaganda.

Years ago I remember seeing an article in an ROK paper gleefully reporting that Kim Il Sung was suffering from a neck tumor.

An accompanying photo showed a English-Muffin-sized lump on Kim's neck.

In the end, he died of a sudden heart attack at 82, about 10 years after the photo appeared.

buwaya said...

Xi obviously withdrew the NK peace carrot, when he went hardcore.
So Kim has to take orders and comply, but he has to save face.
So its now this guy's fault.

Steve said...

Like a wild animal that eats her young when stressed.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

Xi obviously withdrew the NK peace carrot, when he went hardcore.

A total caricature of the China-NK relationship. Yes, China has tremendous leverage over North Korea. But China cannot exert that leverage without risking the collapse of the regime, a nightmare scenario for China. And the North Koreans know this. They are not a light switch that China can flick on or off on a whim.

J. Farmer said...

Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against North Korea has failed for a simple reason: they are demanding that North Korea do something they are almost totally opposed to doing. The administration wants the North Korean to give up their nuclear weapons, dismantle their nuclear program, and allow intrusive inspections by foreigners into their program. And in exchange, they are being offered? Sanctions relief. Financial benefits. All in the context of the "Libya model," specifically invoked by Bolton during negotiations. North Korea is a weak and impoverished caught in the middle of great power relations with China and the US, and we are demanding that they give up the one thing that protects the regime from regime change.

Michael K said...

Rocketman thinks he can get his way with us and he is wrong with Trump.

He has been listening to the Democrats and thinks he can out wait Trump.

Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign against North Korea has failed for a simple reason: they are demanding that North Korea do something they are almost totally opposed to doing.

Hillary showed what happens when you do that. Ghaddafi cannot be reached for comment.

Hagar said...

Seems to me it is Kim's attempt to start another round of scams on the U.S. that "failed."
Trump is just standing pat.

buwaya said...

"They are not a light switch that China can flick on or off on a whim."

They are. China has bought the lot of the NK leadership. Regime survival is a matter of Chinese whim.

J. Farmer said...

So just to recap: North Korea remains a nuclear weapons power, continues to have several nuclear weapons, continues to advance their nuclear weapons program, and has received huge legitimacy on the international and domestic stage.

Memo to Donald Trump: It’s Time to End-Run Your Advisers on North Korea is an excellent summation of the current impasse.

gerry said...

Stalin shot members of his census bureau for reporting the "Wrong" numbers. That didn't stop FDR from loving him.

Bernie Sanders still does.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

They are. China has bought the lot of the NK leadership. Regime survival is a matter of Chinese whim.

Only if China was willing to cut off its nose to spite its face. If China took steps to collapse the regime, it would be faced with the awful consequences. Not only would there be thousands (if not millions) of impoverished, under educated, and low-skilled refugees spilling across the nearly thousand-mile long border. In addition, North Korea would become a failed state and would likely suffer a prolonged period of anarchic violence. Under such a scenario, the South would most certainly intervene (along with their US partners) and could potentially bring an ROK-US-allied power into existence in the North, which would put the US-ROK alliance right on the China border. It is fabulism to suggest that China has total power over North Korea because it has the capacity to bring such a scenario into existence.

Michael K said...

It is fabulism to suggest that China has total power over North Korea because it has the capacity to bring such a scenario into existence.

Not necessarily. China does not want the present defectors because the area of China across the Yalu is poor.

If NK collapsed, the south would bear the brunt of the refugees, which is why they have been less than enthusiastic about the trickles of escapees. Still, they would expect us to help if the regime collapsed but Germany handled the collapse of east Germany. I was disappointed in how they did it as I had bet they would leave the east as a low cost manufacturing source as they cranked up the skills but then unions vetoed that and held up development for a decade.

rcocean said...

Its not necessary to shoot him. Just make everyone think you did.

buwaya said...

" It is fabulism to suggest that China has total power over North Korea because it has the capacity to bring such a scenario into existence."

It is as much fabulism, or not, as to suggest that the German government had total power over its own military in 1914. There were prudential reasons not to consider certain policies and it was a judgment call to order it to go to war.

That there are prudential reasons not to collapse the NK regime does not mean that the Chinese can't, should they decide to do so. Moreover they can remove any individual in the NK government at whim other than Kim himself, without much risk.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

That there are prudential reasons not to collapse the NK regime does not mean that the Chinese can't, should they decide to do so

It is not a question of ability, only willingness. The US can destroy any capital city it wants with an ICBM, yet it is still fabulism to say that the US can get whatever it wants from other states because it has the capacity to destroy them.

Hagar said...

I don't think regime survival is a matter of Chinese whim exactly, but it certainly depends on the Chinese government's view of the foreseeable future and what policies might be advantageous for China to follow.

It does seem like Xi and Putin both are following Trump's lead for the time being.

J. Farmer said...

@Haga:

I don't think regime survival is a matter of Chinese whim exactly, but it certainly depends on the Chinese government's view of the foreseeable future and what policies might be advantageous for China to follow.

I would just take issue with the word "depends" there. Yes, China exerts a great deal of influence over North Korea, but the decision to keep or get rid of an existing nuclear arsenal cannot be made in Beijing.

Drago said...

wwww: "Never forget with whom you are dealing. This is the North Korean regime."

There is nothing more amusing than lefties caving to the chicoms and Norks for 60 years and then lecturing others.

Nonapod said...

I can't say for certain whether Xi could force Kim to quash his nuclear ambitions and work out some kind of deal with Trump, but it certainly seems plausible. From what I understand China buys 91% of their exports (mostly coal, textiles, and various unrefined ores and some refined stuff like pig iron) and 94% of all North Korea's imports come from China.

And given what's known about their domestic production and consumption, it sure seems like NK's economy is almost entirely dependent on China. Not to mention no doubt a fair amount of their defense. I think it's safe to say that China's got more than a little leverage on North Korea. Whether you consider North Korea some kind
of suzerainty or vassal state of China is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

mikee said...

I, for one, picture Obama reading this, and then sipping his morning coffee one more time, and then imagining just for a few seconds his two Secretaries of State getting what they, too, deserve. And getting it good and hard.

Hagar said...

The Kim regime's "illegal" activities around the world create problems also for the Chinese and Russian governments.
OTOH, if the regime collapses, Korea will be unified and become a nuclear power controlled by the south, and that will be an even bigger problem for them.

A little like Soong Ching-ling and Mao; she would stay where his irritation with her would just be stayed in consideration of the hubbub caused by getting rid of her.

JackWayne said...

Riffing off Althouse’s precious post about which media are better than others. It’s worth noting that Zerohedge and a few others had the Kim murders first. I’ve stopped expecting Drudge to be first. He’s morphed into the National Inquirer. And it’s worth noting that in the Age of Nothing’s Funny, there are now 3 really funny right-leaning satire websites. Does the Left have even one?

JackWayne said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Nonapod:

I think it's safe to say that China's got more than a little leverage on North Korea. Whether you consider North Korea some kind
of suzerainty or vassal state of China is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.


The US equally possess "more than a little leverage." It has the capacity to totally obliterate North Korea. But engaging in such a course of action would require the US to pay an unacceptably high cost to get what it wants and thus its capacity to exploit this leverage is constrained. Similar with China. They subsidize North Korea precisely because they see it in their interests to do so. It would take quite a change in the regime's behavior to later that calculus for China.

JackWayne said...

Precious/previous: Sometimes Spellcheck is your friend.

Nonapod said...

@J. Farmer

The US equally possess "more than a little leverage."

With regards to leverage the US has on North Korea versus the leverage China has on North Korea, I disagree. Or at least I wouldn't define it as "equal". China clearly possesses far more direct economic leverage on North Korea than the US. This is significant because, sure, we could bring nuclear annihilation to NK just as easily as China could. But that's the sort of last resort, extreme leverage that is unlikely to ever come to pass in the normal course of events and everyone knows this.

Meanwhile China could very quickly and easily bring economic hardship to NK if they don't get what they want. They can bring just the right amount of economic pain to the regime so it wouldn't collapse, but still cause a lot of grief for the leadership.

In short, when it comes to leverage on North Korea, China obviously has far more of it than we do.

Not that the various US sanctions don't hurt North Korea.

Skeptical Voter said...

Well you tell the boss what he wants to hear--"I've got this handled Boss!"

And the Boss goes to meet the other party--and it "ain't handled".

Now in corporate America you get fired; in North Korea you get fired at with an anti-aircraft cannon.

Tomcc said...

J. Farmer- I tend to find myself agreeing with your position on NK policies. But I don't see a logical outcome that reduces the threat that NK poses. We (the US) have military power and economic power. I don't see what else we have to bargain with. Other than the power that he already has, what else does Kim Jong Un desire? I don't see any evidence that he perceives any advantage in trading his own military power for economic improvements. He seems to derive much of his "god-like" status within NK by presenting himself as the guy standing up to American imperialism. I don't know how he could offer any kind of rapprochement with the US and finesse that with his people/generals.

J. Farmer said...

@Tomcc:

I don't know how he could offer any kind of rapprochement with the US and finesse that with his people/generals.

Any concessions achieved from the US would be spun as a spectacular achievement and most certainly would play well for domestic propaganda purposes. The primary problem thus far is that the US has been unwilling to back down from a maximalist demands. Daniel Larison writing in The American Conservative a few days ago outlines some of the systemic problems:

Another obstacle to successful diplomacy with North Korea is that the U.S. has proven to be pretty bad at negotiating with weaker states and then even worse when it comes to honoring the agreements made with them. It was eight years between the deal struck with Gaddafi in Libya and the U.S.-led intervention to overthrow him. It took less than three years from the time the U.S. concluded a deal with Iran until the next administration arbitrarily reneged on it. The Agreed Framework didn’t last more than a decade before the Bush administration blew it up and put us on the path to the current impasse. The problem isn’t just that other states have good reason not to trust the U.S. to keep up our end of the bargain, but that these agreements are unusually vulnerable to sabotage by the domestic political opponents of the administrations that negotiated them.

Agreements with weaker states don’t do well in our political system because there is a widely-shared assumption in Washington that the U.S. shouldn’t have settled for whatever it got from the other side and should have forced bigger concessions. These states are perceived to be just threatening enough to be distrusted, but weak enough that we shouldn’t have to compromise with them. Republican hawks are most likely to exploit this to their advantage, but we have seen some similar posturing from Democratic hawks over North Korea talks that shows how difficult it would be for Trump to sell an agreement with North Korea if he ever managed to get one. We need to remember that most of the criticism of Trump’s engagement with North Korea has been that he has been too accommodating to the DPRK rather than too inflexible and maximalist, and that bodes ill for the durability of any potential agreement.

Because the states that made these agreements with our government are viewed as essentially illegitimate “rogues,” there are strong political incentives against offering them anything significant and equally strong incentives to increase our demands later on. There is virtually no political price to be paid for reneging on an agreement with one of these states, and few politicians want to expend the political capital to negotiate one in the first place. As a result, securing one of these agreements is usually a time-consuming, politically costly slog that is then thrown into the trash within a decade so the previous administration’s critics can score points and show how stupidly “tough” they are. The JCPOA was almost entirely one-sided in favor of the U.S. and the rest of the P5+1, but for its detractors anything less than total Iranian capitulation was considered “appeasement.” Under these conditions, a meaningful compromise with North Korea that involved major concessions from the U.S. and our allies doesn’t stand a chance of surviving for more than a few years.

narciso said...

you mean till kim jong il, invited aq khan's workshop to north korea, yes the framework was a useless gambit on our end, of course the negotiator wendy Sherman, went about the same track with the ruling councils of iran, and of course they reneged, seeing as there was no verification regime, that worth a darn,

Nobody said...

It took less than three years from the time the U.S. concluded a deal with Iran until the next administration arbitrarily reneged on it.

“The US” never concluded a deal, it was Obama’s personal “deal” that he never rand by anybody outside of the executive. If we are going to start to be held to “treaties” done with a pen and a phone, then we may as well burn the Constitution. Other countries should be aware of that. To this day, irredentist members of the old regime, Obama’s regime, are undermining Trump abroad.

MikeR said...

My son says that the next time they negotiate, Trump needs to say that he will not speak to anyone except Kim.

buwaya said...

NK isn't Libya.
Libya had no "big brother" next door on which it was entirely dependent.
Or even partially dependent, as Libya once was on the Soviet Union.
That's why Libya often acted in Soviet interests, including training and harboring European terrorist groups with Soviet support. A bit of a desperate connection.
Poor old Gaddafi was on his own after the fall of the Soviet Union.

NK are a puppet state of China.
If China wants the regime to stay, they stay.
If they are to have an agreement with the US and SK and Japan, it will be vetted by China.
If such a thing is against China's interests, then no agreement.
If NK threatens anyone, it is proxy politics by China.
This is the historical relationship between Korea and China, rarely breached, and only in times of Chinese weakness.

Nobody said...

At some point it’s going to be Kim up against the wall if he makes it impossible for anybody to feel safe.

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

yes the framework was a useless gambit on our end,

The Agreed Framework was succeeding in halting North Korea's nuclear ambitions despite the attempts of many in the Congress to torpedo it. When the Bush administration followed the sage advice of John Bolton, they blew up the Agreed Framework and spent several years in multilateral negotiations in order to arrive at an agreement that was...a watered down version of the Agreed Framework.

As for Iran, the IAEA recently verified yet again that Iran has been in compliance with its obligations under the JCPOA.

buwaya said...

NK is a "deniable" proxy of China's, used explicitly to be a problem and source of drama, leverage with which China can hold out for concessions (to China) in order to use their "good offices" to make their pet behave itself.

buwaya said...

NK used to be more independent, in the Kim Il Sung days, when they were doing a bit, at least, of playing off the Chinese and Soviets against each other.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

The comparison to Libya was not a comparison of their respective geostrategic positions. The comparison was that Gaddafi made a deal with great powers to give up its WMD in exchange for sanctions relief and normalization. Then he was overthrown a few short years later by those same powers. That is a fate that North Koreans are not interested in repeating.

If China wants the regime to stay, they stay.

Under what possible scenario do you believe the Chinese would prefer a failed state in the North over the status quo?

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

NK is a "deniable" proxy of China's, used explicitly to be a problem and source of drama, leverage with which China can hold out for concessions (to China) in order to use their "good offices" to make their pet behave itself.

Nice framing, buwaya. So even when the North acts in ways that seem to be at odds with Beijin's desires, that isn't evidence of the lack of China's total control but mere theater. So no matter what the North Koreans do it's evidence that China controls them. Your argument can't lose.

Tomcc said...

J. Farmer- thanks for that; it's an apt description. I would also note that verification in these agreements is both necessary and tricky. (See Iraq under Sadam). When you are a sovereign nation, you are...sovereign.

Seeing Red said...

Sovereign nation? What’s that?

And Barry’s been diddling with Iran.

buwaya said...

"Under what possible scenario do you believe the Chinese would prefer a failed state in the North"

If the Chinese don't want a failed state, they will keep it viable.
If they want a failed state (beats me why they would want that, but who knows) then so it will be.

narciso said...

right the iaea, that was fooled by north korea, for the better part of 30 years as to the developments rising out of yongbyon, tell me another one,

interesting thing about Libya, is probably by the mid 70s, if not early Edwin Wilson had been assigned to provide explosives and security personnel through task force 157, by the company, but it was designed to look like a rogue operation, it was said operations that carter used as pretext to engage the purge of some 800 covert operators

buwaya said...

"The comparison to Libya was not a comparison of their respective geostrategic positions."

But this, their geostrategic position, is a vital point.
Libya was hanging in the wind, at the complete mercy of Euro-American whims.
NK is not in that position.

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

right the iaea, that was fooled by north korea, for the better part of 30 years as to the developments rising out of yongbyon, tell me another one,


Well, one important difference is that in the Iran case the IAEA has inspectors on the ground, taking air and soil samples, electronic seals on uranium stockpiles 24/7 video surveillance, and a monitoring mechanism for dual use supplies. If you know of any evidence that the Iranians have not been complying with the JCPOA, please provide it.

narciso said...

to be more precise, these elite circles in Europe, which included prof mifsud, were the tools of islamists networks, largely supported by Qatar, turkey and Saudi arabia, all of whom had reasons to square accounts with muammar, Berlusconi, Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama were dupes of said factions, or willing accomplices,

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

Libya was hanging in the wind, at the complete mercy of Euro-American whims.
NK is not in that position.


Nuclear weapons help insure the North against regime change from the east or the west.

If the Chinese don't want a failed state, they will keep it viable.
If they want a failed state (beats me why they would want that, but who knows) then so it will be.


That is my point. You cannot imagine why it would want that, but you're saying it controls North Korea by its ability to make that happen. The Chinese obviously consider a failed state in North Korea a horrible scenario and are willing to put up with a lot of aggravating behavior on the part of the North. And the North likely knows this. That is the dynamic of the China-NK relation, a cycling of trust and suspicion and cooperation and contempt. The execution of Jang Song-thaek and the assaition of Kim Jong-nam were both widely seen at thumbs in the eye to China and were not well received in Beijing, but there wasn't really much they could do about it.

buwaya said...

" but you're saying it controls North Korea by its ability to make that happen."

China controls NK because it has bought the NK leadership both collectively and individually. They are effectively on Chinese salary, they have property in China. They have children in China. They vacation in China. If China permits they have a haven in China. All money in NK, certainly hard currency, comes from China.

buwaya said...

"The execution of Jang Song-thaek and the assaition of Kim Jong-nam were both widely seen at thumbs in the eye to China and were not well received in Beijing, "

Not well received by who in Beijing? Note that China itself has only recently resolved a leadership struggle.

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

China controls NK because it has bought the NK leadership both collectively and individually. They are effectively on Chinese salary, they have property in China. They have children in China. They vacation in China. If China permits they have a haven in China. All money in NK, certainly hard currency, comes from China.

Jang Song-thaek was executed explicitly on the premise that he was accepting bribes from China. And Jang was widely seen as one of China's most influential contacts in Pyongyang. My point is that while China does possess a huge amount of leverage against North Korea, it cannot effectively exercise much of that level without harming itself.

narciso said...

the Edwin Wilson case, which gave a great deal of attention to larry barcella, who was given mueller level hagiography by the likes of peter maas at the times, shows how the deep state for it's own purposes, hides the authorization for certain projects, said coverup furthers the professional ambitions of company players like Stanley sporkin went from counsel to a federal judge,

the Chinese support the kim dynasty, in stark contrast to any rival power bloc, the failed state is by their own making,

J. Farmer said...

@buwaya:

Not well received by who in Beijing? Note that China itself has only recently resolved a leadership struggle.

Jang was excuted in 2013.

China's Official Response To Jang Song-Thaek's Execution: An Analysis

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

the Chinese support the kim dynasty, in stark contrast to any rival power bloc, the failed state is by their own making,

North Korea is not a failed state.

madAsHell said...

Sometimes the NK executions can be well thought out!! There was one NK official that was tied to a stake, and then they dropped a mortar on him.

Ambrose said...

Good lesson for some on what a real authoritarian looks like.

narciso said...

you consider the north Korean regime, a functioning state, by what understanding they way it keeps it's ruling class in power, while keeps the populace in medieval level subsistence,

susan.h said...

There is a tough balance to being a North Korean: be talented enough to get a job where you can live in Pyongyang and shop at the stores that have actual provisions but don't be so talented that the people in power know who you are.

buwaya said...

Chairman Xi arguably had not fully consolidated power until some point in 2017-2018.
There has been a very slow moving internal coup in China since 2012.
You have to consider all of these matters in the context of what may be happening in Chinese politics. Which is of course only poorly understood outside of Chinese leadership circles.

And this includes the changing status of NK vis a vis China, and what the Chinese want to do about, or with, or through NK.

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

you consider the north Korean regime, a functioning state, by what understanding they way it keeps it's ruling class in power, while keeps the populace in medieval level subsistence,

I am not exactly sure what that sentence is supposed to mean, but yes I do consider the North Korean regime a functioning state. It maintains political control over its territory; a failed state does not. See Afghanistan or Somalia, for example. North Korea has a lot of problems with its political and economic systems, but being a failed state is not one of them.

narciso said...

Indeed, and kim the dynast, despite not being the most intelligent member of the family, does possess a certain animal cunning somewhat like Maduro in Venezuela, who sidestepped both Chavez's brother, and general cabello, both larger players, part of this coup let last month supposedly involved using a sanctioned state player, raul gorrin who had tamed the opposition globoviion network to entice the likes of general padron and other high officials in the ruling councils,

narciso said...

Afghanistan is more influenced by Pakistan, then the strong tribe, which has been on expedition for 18 years, this is why the operation has proven counterproductive, perhaps it always was consider the battles of saraghari (sic) and malakand, which bedeviled both local authorities and colonial forces,

Fen said...

I do consider the North Korean regime a functioning state. It maintains political control over its territory

North Korea is a proxy of China, always has been - a tool to poke at America and distract her while China plays it's long game.

The key to North Korea is China.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

The key to North Korea is China.

I think yes and no. China certainly has an important role to play. W. Bush made this exact argument while endorsing the so-called six-party talks with North Koreans. But there are still limits to the pressure China can put on North Korea without risking unacceptable costs to themselves. And if anything, Kim has been consolidating power away from Beijing and wrapping u the patronage network supported by Beijing. He obviously has a desire for a more independent role of his country, even if it must remain a client state of China's.

narciso said...

and what axtually came of those talks, much like the P 5+1 talks that mousavian admitted to the Ayatollah, was a stall for time,

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

and what axtually came of those talks, much like the P 5+1 talks that mousavian admitted to the Ayatollah, was a stall for time,

The P5+1 produced one of the most comprehensive and significant arms control agreements in the world. And Mousavian admitted no such thing. The stall for time does not even make since, because the agreement would severely inhibit Iran's capacity to build a weapon. They haven't had a program since 2003, and even then it was discovered because of the diversion of dual-use items, and that was with no inspections regime on the ground.

narciso said...

and he was rewarded for his deception, by serving as a scholar at Princeton in 09-10, his other associate in deception is the current prime minister rouhani, who was the key player in practically every state action by the regime from the Buenos aires bombing to the berlin slaughter of Kurdish dissidents,

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

So why was Mousavi jailed by Ahmadinejad? And please provide a source for the assertion that "mousavian admitted to the Ayatollah, was a stall for time,"

narciso said...

because mousavian was like the Leninist Krasin, over the Stalinists, there was a Telegraph piece that included his admission to the Ayatollah,

Michael K said...

The P5+1 produced one of the most comprehensive and significant arms control agreements in the world.

Except for Munich 1938 which produced "Peace in Our Time."

It's nice to see Pat Buchanan believes in arms agreements.

madAsHell said...

Obama killed Kim Hyok Chol.

Obama was such a feckless negotiator that no one could believe Trump wouldwalk out of the Hanoi negotiations.

narciso said...

somewhat like Reykjavik, except gorbachev was a little more lenient with Gromyko,

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

Except for Munich 1938 which produced "Peace in Our Time."

Except the Munich Agreement was not an arms agreement, and Germany was a powerful nation-state bargaining from a position of power and was able to gain a major concession, annexation of German Sudetenland. But other than that, yeah totally the same.

Also, I'd think someone who had read Buchanan's Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War would have come away with a much less cliched response about Munich and 1938.

J. Farmer said...

@Narciso:

because mousavian was like the Leninist Krasin, over the Stalinists, there was a Telegraph piece that included his admission to the Ayatollah,

Yeah, count me skeptical. I don't accept as a source an amorphous "Telegraph piece" you said you once read.

narciso said...

but you trust the mullah and their lackies at the iaea:


https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2018/12/19/anatomy-of-irans-deception-and-how-iran-benefited/

J. Farmer said...

@narciso:

but you trust the mullah and their lackies at the iaea

If I asked a mullah for a source and he said some Telegraph piece he once read, I wouldn't trust that, either. But of course, the JCPOA does not require trust. It, in fact, anticipates just the opposite. And of course you know nothing about the weapons inspectors on the ground, but that does not stop you from casually slurring them as "lackies."

As for the nuclear archive, recall that it was old documents sitting in a crappy warehouse unguarded in Tehran. They were detailing a clandestine program that had stopped in 2003. IAEA inspectors already have access to the Gchine uranium mine.

Trump keeps saying he wants to negotiate a "better deal" with Iran. What do you think such a deal would look like?

Nichevo said...


rcocean said...
Its too bad Trump can't execute Mueller for his bad report. Sads.

5/31/19, 11:10 AM


It's okay with me.

Big Mike said...

So will the next chief negotiator offer Trump a worse deal? Or a better one?

Seeing Red said...

Trump keeps saying he wants to negotiate a "better deal" with Iran. What do you think such a deal would look like?

Only what Obama lets them agree to.

narciso said...

Actually the documents say otherwise, that's why I linked them.

Michael K said...

But other than that, yeah totally the same.

Yes it was. Tell me an arms agreement that worked ?

Lewis Wetzel said...

J. Farmer wrote:
"Trump keeps saying he wants to negotiate a "better deal" with Iran. What do you think such a deal would look like?"
Uh . . . just off the top of my head . . . no atom bombs for Iran? No IRBM's for the mullahs?
And can we please, please stop referring to Iran as an "Islamic Republic"? It is not a Republic, the Mullahs have the right to override their constitution. The Iranians are not a self-ruling people, they are a theocracy.

Rusty said...

LW
I think any agreement has to include reigning in Irans surrogates around the mideast. Hamas and Hezbola and others have to go.