Understanding Korea



The American people don’t mistake the absence of a final agreement for the absence of progress. We made progress; we must be patient. We made historic advances; we will not turn back.–Ronald Reagan

Bruce Cumings is an American historian of East Asia, professor, lecturer and author. He is the Gustavus F. and Ann M. Swift Distinguished Service Professor in History, and former chair of the history department at the University of Chicago.–Wikipedia

Do Americans understand Korea? Fifty years of propaganda and North Korean isolation have made that unlikely. Many are concerned that the Singapore meeting might fail due to lack of preparation and misunderstanding; Korea is different from other countries and different from what we imagine. The Korean language is loosely related to Japanese, unrelated to Chinese, and much like no other language. Translators at Singapore may face a difficult challenge in making Korean views clear to Americans.

Bruce Cumings writes:

Visiting Seoul in March, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asserted that North Korea has a history of violating one agreement after another; in fact, President Bill Clinton got it to freeze its plutonium production for eight years (1994–2002) and, in October 2000, had indirectly worked out a deal to buy all of its medium- and long-range missiles. Clinton also signed an agreement with Gen. Jo Myong-rok stating that henceforth, neither country would bear “hostile intent” toward the other.

The Bush administration promptly ignored both agreements and set out to destroy the 1994 freeze. … The simple fact is that Pyongyang would have no nuclear weapons if Clinton’s agreements had been sustained.

American hostility toward North Korea is much like decades of hostility toward Cuba–in both cases bitterness from defeat resulted in decades of sanctions. I am also reminded of a prospective agreement on nuclear arms nearly reached by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik, Iceland, an agreement which eventually led to progress.

What will come of the Singapore meeting is unpredictable. Do Trump, Pompeo, and Bolton even have a common goal, one wonders? Was Giuliani’s claim that Mr. Kim came begging intended to forestall agreement? Which Donald Trump will show up–Dr. Jekyll who wants a Nobel Prize or the “take it or else” bully, Mr. Hyde?

Perhaps President Trump meeting and discussing with Kim Jong-un will unexpectedly produce progress on peace for Korea. Let’s hope so.










About whungerford

* Contributor at NewNY23rd.com where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in Trump and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Understanding Korea

  1. josephurban says:

    I suspect that this meeting is not about North Korea or nukes or progress. I suspect this meeting is about PR and a photo op for Mr Trump. Something Fox News can inflate into a massive foreign policy victory. Something Kim can show to his people to demonstrate that he is on equal terms with the most powerful nation on Earth. No other POTUS would give North Korea that status. Why would Kim give up the very weapons that forced Trump to the negotiating table? Nukes are the only leverage he has.


  2. whungerford says:

    Yes, it may be a PR stunt for both Kim and Trump. Perhaps they will agree to negotiate a peace treaty. I don’t know why either side would object much to that. Kim might insist that US forces leave Korea, but Trump may want that anyway. I don’t agree that nukes are Kim’s only weapons–N. Korea has a large army as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. whungerford says:

    Watch out for bias in news reports. When we watch Fox, for example, we expect bias. NBC and CNN commentators are biased too, and it may be harder to spot. Is the Singapore summit only about Mr. Kim agreeing to give up nuclear weapons? That may be the US view, but Koreans are likely to have other priorities. Did N. Korea develop nuclear weapons only to threaten the United States, or did they have better reasons?


  4. josephurban says:

    It is always a good idea to have meetings and talks. (But just imagine what Fox would be saying if Obama had agreed to meet with KIm!). Talking does no harm. But don’t go into talks with the foolish idea that you will get everything you want and the other side will just capitulate. If you are not prepared to compromise you cannot expect the other side to compromise.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.