North Korea Willing to Denuclearize If Regime Safety Guaranteed

[demmiblue]

Source: Bloomberg

North Korea is open to denuclearization if the safety of Kim Jong Un’s regime is guaranteed, South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s office said.

The two leaders will meet for a summit at the end of April along the border, the statement said, adding that North Korea was ready for candid talks with the U.S. to normalize relations.

“North Korea has clearly expressed its intention for denuclearlization on the Korean peninsula, and if there is no military threat, and North Korea’s regime security is promised, they have clarified that there is no reason to hold nuclear weapons,” Moon’s office said.

...

North Korea has agreed to halt nuclear and missile tests while talks are taking place, Moon’s office said. It also pledged to avoid using nuclear or conventional weapons against South Korea, it said.

Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-06/north-korea-open-to-denuclearize-if-regime-safety-guaranteed-south-korea-says?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=soci

---

Link to tweet

[democratisphere]

1. This is all being done WITHOUT assistance or intervention by the United States.

[trusty elf]

3. That won't stop f*ckface from taking credit for any agreement reached.

[Fullduplexxx]

10. I dont know if that is necessarily true. the pressure of having

A psycho in charge here who is just looking for an excuse to attack them may be having an effect and there may be back channel communication going on that we dont know about

[quartz007]

32. The dotard in White House scared NoKO's?

Because of his bigger nuclear button?
And his threats of vaporizing North Korea?

I guess anything is possible.

[BigmanPigman]

2. I wonder why they all wear glasses except for Kim?

Who is in that photo besides Kim?

I hope the Moron doesn't tweet something stupid and derails the whole thing.

[Dustlawyer]

21. Hopefully all he will do is claim credit for it.

[RKP5637]

26. He's holding a press conference today at 3:30PM east coast time. He'll likely hog credit

for anything he can, about anything.

[MGKrebs]

4. Of course Trump will fuck this up too.

He can't take "yes" for an answer.

[Cosmocat]

5. Very hard to believe

that NK will just up and "denuclearize."

[Sherman A1]

6. It might,

Consider the costs savings to the regime and they will most certainly continue research in the background in both weapons and delivery systems but at a much slower pace. This allows them to split the South away from the US at least in part, perhaps leads to an eventual reduction in US presence as part of the deal or at the insistence of the South. It could lead to a lifting of sanctions which help the economy and allow them to focus more on cyber warfare which I suspect is vastly less expensive than nuclear.

[dalton99a]

7. +1

[Cosmocat]

20. That is a rationale and democratic line of thinking

we are talking about a dictator that uses anti-aircraft guns to slaughter people within his regime who he deems disloyal.

Look I would WANT this to be for real, but until it happens, all of human history argues against it.

[Sherman A1]

28. Agreed, however

the first and most important thing is preservation of the regime and himself. The means of getting there are really not all that important. If he can achieve those ends through his recent moves ("intimidating the West", in his mind) call it a Big Win, declare peace and go get a pizza, why not?

[annabanana]

24. Not sure China would be all-in on this..

OR their new President for Life...

unless they're looking to swallow S Korea

[Sherman A1]

29. Why would China not want this resolved?

They have other interests and having the NK issue go away peacefully allows them to refocus on what they might think more important.

[quartz007]

33. China does NOT want NoKo problem gone!

Because it keeps United States spending energy and resources on dealing with NoKo, while China is quietly buying up productive assets all over the world, and establishing military outposts on 3 continents. It is win-win for China to overtake US economically & militarily.

[Sherman A1]

34. Certainly a valid theory.

My understanding is that China has both economic and geographic goals in the Pacific so that a peace settlement on the Korean Peninsula would likely mean the withdrawal or reduction of a US military presence near to their mainland. This would lead to multiple scenarios opening up for both sides of the issue. The US could redeploy those forces or perhaps reduce their military footprint overall. The Chinese could likewise redeploy resources to other areas both foreign and domestic in furtherance of their overall long strategy of economic and geographic influence in the Pacific and worldwide. Time will tell.

[demmiblue]

8. NYT:

North Korea Is Willing to Discuss Giving Up Nuclear Weapons, South Says

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, has told South Korean envoys that his country is willing to begin negotiations with the United States on abandoning its nuclear weapons and that it would suspend all nuclear and missile tests while it is engaged in such talks, South Korean officials said on Tuesday.

...

“The North Korean side clearly stated its willingness to denuclearize,” the statement said. “It made it clear that it would have no reason to keep nuclear weapons if the military threat to the North was eliminated and its security guaranteed.”

If the statement is corroborated by North Korea, it would be the first time Mr. Kim has indicated that his government is willing to discuss giving up nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees from the United States. Until now, North Korea has said its nuclear weapons were not for bargaining away.

“The North expressed its willingness to hold a heartfelt dialogue with the United States on the issues of denuclearization and normalizing relations with the United States,” the statement said. “It made it clear that while dialogue is continuing, it will not attempt any strategic provocations, such as nuclear and ballistic missile tests.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/world/asia/north-korea-south-nuclear-weapons.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

[vercetti2021]

9. Sadly it won't happen

tRump will piss all chances of this since he is so hell bent on starting World War 3.

[oberliner]

11. The thing is - the regime is awful

The idea of guaranteeing it's safety is somewhat sickening.

[paleotn]

13. An extreme case of the lesser of two evils.

[christx30]

14. Yep. Which would be worse?

The continued starvation and prison camps of the North Korean regime, or a global nuclear exchange and the possible deaths of millions of Americans?
It's not up to the US to topple Kim. It's up to his people to shake off their blinders and donut themselves. It may not happen in the next 6 months, or the next 6 years. But it'll happen eventually. But it has to be them doing it. They have to win their own freedom. It can't be handed to them.

[Bengus81]

19. Opps...didn't see your post before I posted but I'll leave mine....

Both are very similar and YES the people of NK need to work for change,not the US playing World Cop again.

[oberliner]

23. Guaranteeing the security of the regime means preventing the people from overthrowing it

How could we live with ourselves if we sign such an agreement guaranteeing the security of this twisted dictatorship?

There has got to be another option.

[christx30]

25. Not with Cheeto in charge.

And I doubt we'd be expected to provide internal security. They're perfectly able to oppress their own people. We wouldn't have to do it for them. We'd just have to turn a blind eye (or pretend to) the North Korean George Washington.
We can't be the cops of the world. It's why a lot of countries hate the US. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. I'd rather see the Kims in charge for the next 6 generations than see L.A or another US city nuked. It's not worth it. Not by a long ahot. Maybe if we had a rational person in the Oval Office, there isn't much we can do, and the best thing we can do is to put a pin in this until Barack Obama 2.0 shows up on the scene, whomever that turns out to be.

[oberliner]

30. A lot of countries admire the US because we take a stand against tyranny

Or at least, we used to.

[christx30]

31. Like in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yes, Mullah Omar and Saddam Hussein were bad people. Saddam gassed his own people. But was going into Iraq the right thing to do? Was going into Afghanistan the right thing to do? 17 years, hundreds of thousands dead. Untold number of both countries' peoples' dead? Have we made much progress? We unleashed ISIL. Taking a stand against tyranny is great, if the rest of the world is behind you. They usually aren't though.

[Bengus81]

17. Not as bad as firing NUKES at each other.....

It's a horrible regime in NK,if people there want change then THEY need to make it happen--not us.

[oberliner]

22. Are those the only options?

[paleotn]

12. Finally, we get to the heart of the problem

It's always been about the safety and continuation of the Kim regimen and the fact that the Korean War never actually ended. Nukes are the best insurance against regime change money can buy, but if you don't need the insurance anymore, it's a huge waste of money. However, I doubt SK or the US can or will give assurances that would satisfy NK with respect to safety, but at least there's a glimmer of hope.

[melm00se]

15. Has anyone been keeping

score as to how many times the DPRK has made an agreement and then broken it?

[Bengus81]

16. Quick Trump,thow that big wrench in it. Bush had Bin Laden and SH,you NEED Lil Kim.....

You know those "boogeymen" men to keep WAR at your disposal and gas prices at $4-5.00 per gallon.

[sinkingfeeling]

18. Unfortunately, this f**king administration will never accept this.

[malthaussen]

27. Guess the nuclear program has run into a few snags.

We know who will take credit for this one.

-- Mal