Perhaps more newsworthy than Stormy Daniels

Me in January, on the subject of Donald Trump and North Korea:

His detractors won’t see it this way, but after Obama’s flip-flopping and prevaricating, Trump is injecting some much-needed clarity into the situation. Everyone knows the Russians and the Chinese would not tolerate a nuclear attack on their interests and allies; Trump is merely restating that the same is true for the US. Personally, I think this makes the world a touch safer than it was.

Me 2 days later:

Kim Jong Un has done the only sensible thing left open to him: back down. We’ll have to wait and see whether this is the start of a new era of North Korea being relatively benign, but I’m hoping it is. If so, we can be sure everyone will line up to say this is despite Trump’s bellicose approach, not because of it.

Me in March:

A couple of months ago we were told Trump’s rhetoric on North Korea and juvenile tweeting was bringing the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon. Turns out bitch-slapping Rocketman has given him pause for thought.

The BBC today:

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un says he has suspended all missile tests and will shut down a nuclear test site.

“From 21 April, North Korea will stop nuclear tests and launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles,” the country’s state news agency said.

Mr Kim said further tests were unnecessary because Pyongyang’s nuclear capabilities had been “verified”.

The surprise announcement comes as North Korea prepares for historic talks with South Korea and the US.

Mr Kim is due to meet his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in next week for the first inter-Korean summit in over a decade, and US President Donald Trump by June.

Both countries have been pushing Pyongyang to denuclearise and they reacted positively to the latest development.

If Trump keeps this up, Obama should gift him his Nobel Peace Prize.

Share

21 thoughts on “Perhaps more newsworthy than Stormy Daniels

  1. I’ll bet that twat Sopel from the BBC still manages to get some sort of anti Trump dig in and turn it in to a story about Trump’s negatives. Last week when there was talk of a peace treaty, as opposed to an Armistice, he managed to turn it in to a story about Trump gambling with nuclear war.

  2. Even my earnest 6th former son with all the “correct” attitudes suddenly looked up this morning and said: “hang on – Trump seems to have managed to do something that has eluded all these reasonable, sensible presidents”

    To which I agreed. He has suddenly spotted that the Norks were able to call Obama’s bluff – all the time – because they guessed – in fact they thought it was a racing certainty – that he was never going to go postal on their iron age behinds. They’ve realised that there is a loon in the White House who really genuinely might bomb actually back to the stone age and that the Chinese won’t be able to stop him.

    All good.

  3. Kim Jong-un could announce he was giving up all nuclear weapons, that he would sign a formal treaty ending the Korean war, open up his country to international trade, recognise the existence of S Korea, and announce that the two nations will peacefully co-exist from here on, and Trump would still not be given any credit for what had been achieved, not just on his watch, but also significantly down to his personal input into the situation.

    To be honest Trump could bring peace to the Middle East and cure cancer, and he would still be derided. There is literally nothing he could do to change the attitudes of the establishment elites to him.

  4. Jim, April 21, 2018 at 7:07 pm

    +1

    Same applies to a Conservative Gov’t in UK

    I imagine BBC & rest of MSM are reporting this through gritted teeth.

    Most BBC reports I’ve heard concentrate on NK/SK talks and tag Trump “proposed talks not confirmed” onto end.

  5. A good post, Tim. I’d only add that China has probably applied pressure on the Norks, too – and China has done so precisely because Trump appears unpredictable and tough-minded.

  6. So we needed to suck up to the great dictator because he *appeared* unstable and might nuke everyone else in Korea and then we get a “great dictator” of our own who appeared unstable and might nuke everyone else in Korea…. but our guy is to be vilified and is expected to trigger war but the other guy was never to blame? Nuts. Just plain nuts.

    You stand up to bullles and Obama’s was weak domestically and internationally yet Obama was the first [insert suitable adjective here] President and therefore worthy of a Nobel despite doing nothing. Trump is the first [insert adjective here] and deserves to be impeached and kicked out because he has pushed a China to a better position in respect of US workers, appears to be resolving the Korean Peninsula standoff, is dealing forcefully with Russia (despite apparently being their man) including wiping out a bunch of their people in Syria, etc. No, not partisan in the slightest.

    History will judge them better than current writers can. I hope I live long enough.

  7. Kim Jong-un could announce he was giving up all nuclear weapons, that he would sign a formal treaty ending the Korean war, open up his country to international trade, recognise the existence of S Korea, and announce that the two nations will peacefully co-exist from here on, and Trump would still not be given any credit for what had been achieved, not just on his watch, but also significantly down to his personal input into the situation.

    This is an outcome you actually think is remotely likely?

  8. “Early in life I have noticed that no event is ever correctly reported in a newspaper, but in Spain, for the first time, I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened according to various ‘party lines’.”
    George Orwell – Looking back on the Spanish War

    Then there is this not quite Nobel Peace Prize winning example of the media losing its grip of power.

    “The 2018 Pulitzer Prize Winner in National Reporting Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post

    For deeply sourced, relentlessly reported coverage in the public interest that dramatically furthered the nation’s understanding of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and its connections to the Trump campaign, the President-elect’s transition team and his eventual administration. (The New York Times entry, submitted in this category, was moved into contention by the Board and then jointly awarded the Prize.)”

  9. “This is an outcome you actually think is remotely likely?”

    I have no idea. Its possible, however not very likely I suspect.

    My point was that even IF Kim Jong-un did all that, Trump would still not get any credit from the usual suspects.

  10. @Bardon: there are reports from Western reporters who have actually been to Douma, and have been unable to find anyone with any knowledge of a gas attack, including the staff at the hospital that ‘treated’ them. Now whether these reports are genuine, or made up for propaganda reasons, or based on a scene that has been sanitised by the Assad regime, one could not say. However it seems all rather like Orwell’s experiences in the Spanish War.

  11. The 2018 Pulitzer Prize Winner in National Reporting Staffs of The New York Times and The Washington Post

    Oh yes, the Pulitzer Prize for speculation about possible collusion between Trump and Russia which, after 18 months and millions of dollars spent on an investigation which has more tentacles than a fleet of octopus, there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence.

  12. H’m. Trump hasn’t achieved anything yet. As you quote Kim himself as saying, nuclear tests are no longer necessary, as NK has confirmed that it has viable nuclear weapons. It’s easy for Trump to offer to meet Kim, and indeed in the historical context that can be seen as a major concession to NK. I don’t disagree that Trump’s deviation from the unproductive policies of the last twenty-odd years may prove fruitful. But it is far too early to think of cracking open the champagne. The most likely outcome is probably that Kim makes cosmetic concessions to buy time, while presenting the Summit meeting as a propaganda triumph – being treated as an equal by the leader of the only superpower. I hope to be proved wrong but am not confident that I will be.

  13. I don’t disagree that Trump’s deviation from the unproductive policies of the last twenty-odd years may prove fruitful. But it is far too early to think of cracking open the champagne.

    Yes, but it’s heading in the right direction and seemingly not towards OMG TRUMP’S TWEETS ARE GONNA CAUSE A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST!!!!11!!!

  14. Trump hasn’t achieved anything yet.

    Isn’t that when US presidents are traditionally awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

  15. “Yes, but it’s heading in the right direction…” Sorry, I know we’d all like to think that, but it’s far too early to say that it is. Let’s see what emerges if the meeting actually takes place before announcing that things are on the right track. For all we know now, Trump and Kim may actually be on a collision course. (And I remain pretty certain that Kim’s goal is to retain and consolidate his nuclear capability.)

  16. Tony Blair, the media manipulator extraordinaire, was brilliant in his early years – Northern Ireland, Sierra Leone, and taking us to the edge of all-out war with Serbia over Kosovo went to his head. But the victories were his all the same.
    I like predictions a long way out, and I think that if Trump gets a 2nd term, he will become overconfident, misread the intelligence and his own ability, and have his Iraq equivalent. But he will insist that God will judge him if he’s wrong, thereby neatly sidestepping the opinion of the people who elected him to govern well.

  17. Richard, he has achieved something. Well, something that would be a “success” if Obama did it.

    NK has changed from “we have the right to nuclear weapons” to “we are prepared to give them up”. You may remember that being touted as a triumph when Iran did it, no?

    That may not seem much, but big ships need a lot of time to turn. Agreeing that de-escalation is better than escalation is a minor miracle.

  18. I don’t know, the guy is multi billionaire and president of the Unites States so he obviously hasn’t got a clue…

    The cognitive dissonance in the heads of sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome must be massive.

  19. I don’t know, the guy is multi billionaire and president of the Unites States so he obviously hasn’t got a clue…

    Heh. Someone in my office once said “Trump is so stupid he probably can’t even read.” I replied: “He’s got skyscrapers in Manhattan with his f*cking name on the side. I wish I were that stupid.”

  20. This backs up my earlier points. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/us-and-north-korea-expectations-over-denuclearization-appear-to-collide
    As I’ve said before, Trump may succeed where Obama so obviously didn’t. It would be the diplomatic coup of the century and there should indeed be Nobels all round. But that’s only one possible outcome among many. I would wager a large sum that Kim’s arsenal will be intact in five years’ time. We should not make ourselves appear foolish by celebrating prematurely.

  21. I would wager a large sum that Kim’s arsenal will be intact in five years’ time.

    So would I.

    We should not make ourselves appear foolish by celebrating prematurely.

    True, but even formally ending the Korean War would be the diplomatic coup of the century thus far.

Comments are closed.