Beijing wants to ensure it has a major role in reining in Pyongyang’s nuclear programme while Seoul prefers a process built around US talks with the two Koreas, the Post has learned.
Beijing and Seoul appear split over how to start talks on ridding the Korean peninsula of nuclear weapons, as each player vies for influence in the negotiations, according to diplomatic sources.
Sources told the South China Morning Post that Beijing wanted a structure that would continue to give it an active role in reining in Pyongyang’s nuclear programme while protecting China’s regional interests.
Meanwhile, Seoul prefers a process built around US talks with the two Koreas, according to the sources.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: China is clearly signalling to everyone that they are not going to be put on the sidelines. In the meantime, both North and South Korea are establishing direct communication links .... Koreas discuss communication issues ahead of summit (AP).
4 comments:
Of course China is not going to be "put on the sidelines." This always was and is a no brainer. Of course the parties need to talk tough. I think these talks will succeed and everyone is jockeying for position on trying to take the credit when they do succeed. For what it's worth, America should not allow itself to be "put on the sidelines" either. Given our enormous investment in South Korea over many decades while asking for and receiving very little in return of course we should expect to be a part of this if for no other reason than to ensure our interests are represented and South Korea does not sell us out. These would be very reasonable positions for our government to take.
While it may be premature, I wonder how the Nobel Peace Prizes will be awarded, I think obviously the committee will rush to award one to Xi and another one to Moon (the South Korean leader). Will Kim get one? This one becomes a bit trickier? Will Donald Trump get one? I would say definitely not as the ideology of the selection team simply will not allow this even though he has been, in my opinion, the main reason we are where we are right now.
While I may be mistaken in my analysis, DJT is the only new variable. Xi is a typical Chinese leader. Kim has always been there and the South Korean leader bears little difference from others of his ilk. The only new variable is the master negotiator and deal maker in POTUS.
When he correctly called out South Korea during the campaign as a user and abuser of American largess, I am sure their leaders took notice. They were placed on notice that America would not be their chump forever. As such, they've decided that trying to make peace might actually be a good idea and here we are!!
While it will need to be tweaked to fit individual circumstances, I think that basic template could work in a number of places. We do have a POTUS who has expressed a desire to make our country great. Let's hope and pray he is able to implement something like this in a number of areas.
What I meant to add and failed to add to the previous post is I really don't care who gets the credit as long as peace is achieved. The parties directly involved when peace is achieved will know the inside story on what really happened and peace along with this will be good enough.
BP
Peace? there is peace now in that there is no fighting between contending or possible fighting nations. What the West wants is a nuke free N. Korea...without that, what is there? I too care not a fig who gets a prize if this goal is achieved. From a North Korea perspective, if Trump dumps the nuke deal with Iran, what then would any realistic North Korean leader say about a nuke deal with the West?
Any "nuke deal" would need to be enforceable. Many feel the Iranian deal is not. Also, it's unclear what would happen at the end of the ten year period. If the current effort fails, I believe the only viable option will be for South Korea to nuclear arm themselves via their own domestic program.
Perhaps I should clarify what I mean by "peace." Essentially I mewn a formal peace treaty officially ending the war and an absence of tensions between the countries. As we are righy now, the countries are still technically at war, tensions are extremely high, and one wrong move at the wrong time can lead to hot war very quickly.
As an ally of South Korea, since the conflict is still active, we are at war as well andbif the conflict goes hot we will be in the war as well. In fact, one of my biggest concerns going back 20 years has been that South Korea would do something that would get us into a hot war in a manner contrary to our intersts.
Any resolution to this will have to include a withrawal of US troops or at the very least a path by which our troops can finally be withdrawn. The South Koreans were served notice by candidate Trump that we aren't going to be their chumps for an indefinite period of time.
Post a Comment