Connect with us

Politics

Trump Steps Into North Korea and Agrees With Kim Jong-un to Resume Talks

Published

on

trump north korea

President Trump on Sunday became the first sitting American commander in chief to set foot in North Korea as he met Kim Jong-un, the country’s leader, at the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone, and the two agreed to restart negotiations on a long-elusive nuclear agreement.

Greeted by a beaming Mr. Kim, the president stepped across a low concrete border marker at 3:46 p.m. local time and walked 20 paces to the base of a building on the North Korean side for an unprecedented, camera-friendly demonstration of friendship intended to revitalize stalled talks.

“It is good to see you again,” an exuberant Mr. Kim told the president through an interpreter. “I never expected to meet you in this place.”

“Big moment, big moment,” Mr. Trump told him.

After about a minute on officially hostile territory, Mr. Trump escorted Mr. Kim back over the line into South Korea, where the two briefly addressed a scrum of journalists before slipping inside the building known as Freedom House for a private conversation along with President Moon Jae-in of South Korea. Mr. Trump said he would invite Mr. Kim to visit him at the White House.

“This has a lot of significance because it means that we want to bring an end to the unpleasant past and try to create a new future,” Mr. Kim told reporters. “So it’s a very courageous and determined act.”

“Stepping across that line was a great honor,” Mr. Trump replied. “A lot of progress has been made, a lot of friendships have been made, and this has been in particular a great friendship.”

A showman by nature and past profession, Mr. Trump delighted in the drama of the moment, which he had arranged with a surprise invitation via Twitter barely 24 hours earlier. Never before had American and North Korean leaders gotten together at the military demarcation line, where heavily armed forces have faced off across a tense divide for 66 years since the end of fighting in the Korean War.

The encounter in Panmunjom had been cast as a brief handshake, not a formal negotiation, but the two ended up together for a little more than an hour. After emerging from their conversation, Mr. Trump said he and Mr. Kim had agreed to designate negotiators to resume talks in the next few weeks, four months after they collapsed at a summit meeting in Hanoi, Vietnam.

The American team will still be headed by Stephen Biegun, the special envoy, but it remained unclear who would be on the North Korean side after reports of a purge of Mr. Kim’s team. Asked later if North Korean negotiators were still alive, Mr. Trump said: “I think they are. I can tell you who the main person is. And I would hope the rest are, too.”

Mr. Trump was already scheduled to make an unannounced visit to the DMZ during his trip to South Korea, and he portrayed the idea of meeting Mr. Kim as a spontaneous one, although he had been musing out loud about it for days. Still, it caught even his own staff by surprise and forced an extraordinary scramble to arrange logistics and security, a task that would ordinarily take days or weeks.

Mr. Trump gambled that the show of amity could crack the nuclear logjam, underscoring his faith in the power of his own personal diplomacy — even with brutal strongmen like Mr. Kim — to achieve what past presidents could not. More than halfway through his term, Mr. Trump is eager for a resolution to the longstanding dispute, seeing it as a signature element of the legacy he hopes to forge and a potential boost to his re-election campaign.

Even in this symbolic moment of reconciliation, Mr. Trump seemed to toggle back and forth between glory and grievance, reveling one minute in the history of the day and then the next griping that he was not getting enough credit for reducing friction with North Korea.

He seemed acutely defensive about criticism that he has yet to reach an agreement to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear arsenal despite summit meetings with Mr. Kim in Singapore in June 2018 and in Hanoi in February. Almost every time he saw a microphone, he complained that his achievement had not been appreciated.

“There was great conflict here prior to our meeting in Singapore,” he said. “Tremendous conflict and death all around them. And it’s now been extremely peaceful. It’s been a whole different world.”

“That wouldn’t necessarily have been reported, but they understand it very well,” he added, referring to the news media. “I keep saying that for the people who say nothing has been accomplished. So much has been accomplished.”
Since Mr. Trump took office, North Korea has suspended nuclear tests, released detained Americans and sent back to the United States the remains of some American soldiers killed in the war. South Korean officials and others in the region say tension has eased significantly, and Mr. Moon praised Mr. Trump as “the peacemaker of the Korean Peninsula.”

But American intelligence agencies have concluded that North Korea “is unlikely” to give up its nuclear arsenal, as Mr. Trump has demanded, and even amid the rapprochement with the president, the North has produced enough fuel for a half-dozen additional nuclear weapons, according to one study. In May, it launched short-range missiles in violation of United Nations resolutions.

Critics called the DMZ greeting an overhyped photo opportunity by a president who himself ratcheted up the conflict with North Korea in his first year in office by vowing to unleash “fire and fury” if it threatened American security.

“Today is a victory for South Korea’s middle-power diplomacy and President Moon’s peace agenda,” said Leif-Eric Easley, associate professor of international studies at Ewha Womans University in Seoul. “But tomorrow, North Korea will still have nuclear weapons, and the U.S. will still maintain sanctions.”

Mr. Trump’s meeting with Mr. Kim in Singapore was the first time sitting American and North Korean leaders had met anywhere, and it produced vague promises to eliminate Pyongyang’s nuclear arsenal. Their second meeting, in Hanoi, ended in failure when Mr. Kim made an offer that fell far short of that.

North Korean officials went dark after the collapse of the talks, refusing to respond to either the Americans or the South Koreans. In recent weeks, however, North Korea re-emerged on the world stage as Mr. Kim exchanged letters with Mr. Trump in what was seen as a signal of its interest in resuming diplomacy.

American officials have said they did not think a third meeting should be arranged unless a substantive agreement could be negotiated beforehand. But Mr. Trump was seized with the idea of an encounter at the DMZ.

Panmunjom, which straddles the North-South border, is called the “truce village” because the two sides signed an armistice there in 1953 to halt the three-year Korean War. The two-and-a-half-mile-wide DMZ is a no-man’s zone, but Panmunjom is an exception, a “joint security area” where border guards face off with no buffer between them.
Mr. Kim crossed the DMZ in April 2018 to meet with Mr. Moon, becoming the first North Korean leader to step over the line since the war. Former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton each visited North Korea, flying into its capital, Pyongyang, but only after they left office. Sitting presidents, including Ronald Reagan, Mr. Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, visited the DMZ, but were never greeted by North Korea’s leader.

Mr. Trump, wearing a dark suit, emerged from Freedom House on the South Korean side, walked along gravel between two blue huts to the demarcation line and stopped there to wait for Mr. Kim to approach. Mr. Kim, wearing his traditional Mao suit, bounded forward to greet him.

They shook hands and Mr. Trump patted the younger man’s arm before they stepped across the barrier and strode across a dirt field. The two turned and shook hands again for the cameras, then walked back to the border marker, posed again, and finally headed toward Freedom House.

The scene was fairly chaotic. North Korean security personnel were particularly aggressive, pushing and pulling journalists and even White House staff members, including the new press secretary, Stephanie Grisham, as she tried to get American media into the room. The jostling made television images from the scene look frenzied.

Accompanying the president were Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, and other top aides, including Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. Asked how North Korea was, the president’s daughter answered, “Surreal.”

Mr. Kim said he knew nothing about a possible meeting until the president’s tweet. “I don’t think this kind of surprise meeting would have happened without the excellent personal relationship between your excellency and me,” he told Mr. Trump in Freedom House.

Mr. Trump expressed relief that Mr. Kim came. “If he didn’t show up, the press was going to make me look very bad,” he said. “So you made us both look good, and I appreciate it.”

After their private conversation, which lasted about 50 minutes, Mr. Trump escorted Mr. Kim back to the demarcation line and then watched as the North Korean headed back to his country.

“Certainly, this was a great day; this was a very legendary, very historic day,” Mr. Trump exulted afterward, before adding a cautionary note. “It’ll be even more historic if something comes out of it.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/world/asia/trump-north-korea-dmz.html

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Analysis: Deval Patrick revives debate over ‘electability’

Published

on

By

deval patrick

Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick’s late entry into the presidential race offers Democrats a fresh — and perhaps last — chance to reassess who they think is the strongest candidate to take on President Donald Trump.

It adds to the now months-long debate within the Democratic Party over “electability” less than three months before the first votes are cast. For a party that prides itself on diversity, the answers so far have been consistent and, to some, frustrating — a top tier dominated by white candidates, only one of whom is a woman.

But Patrick’s campaign is a reminder of the divergent paths to victory for presidential hopefuls. White candidates must prove they can win over black voters. Blacks and other minority contenders, however, must show they can build white support.

That type of multiracial coalition has eluded virtually everyone in the race except Joe Biden, who — for now — has deep support among black voters in addition to working-class whites. Those who assess that backing as soft, however, see an opening for a moderate candidate like Patrick, a black governor who made history winning in a majority-white state.

That, some strategists say, differentiates Patrick from Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey, the two other major black candidates whose past electoral success has come in more diverse states and who are lagging in the presidential polls.

“Kamala Harris and Cory Booker are well-funded, high-profile black candidates, but have not been able to rise during a cycle where appeals to black voters are central to who will be the eventual winner of the primary,” said Democratic strategist Joel Payne. He said the election will confront what stigma still exists with white voters toward black candidates in the post-Barack Obama era.

“We can make the assumption that Patrick will be the next black candidate to face this test, but his appeal is altogether different than Booker and Harris,” Payne said. “The Patrick candidacy is an appeal to moderation and to the center-left more than a direct appeal to black voters.”

In 2008, then-Sen. Obama was the lone black candidate in the Democratic primary field and didn’t begin to gain momentum until the final weeks before the Iowa caucuses, trailing Hillary Clinton and John Edwards for much of the contest. But Obama’s showing— winning an overwhelmingly white electorate — gave him momentum to convince black voters in South Carolina and across the Black Belt that he was viable.

Obama’s diverse coalition was a new blueprint in Democratic electoral mapmaking, earning him the party’s nomination and his history-making general election victory. Observers say it’s an electorate Democrats will have to replicate to win in 2020.

The trio of African Americans have taken different approaches in how they contend with the racial aspects of their candidacies.

Harris announced her candidacy on Martin Luther King Jr. Day and has unique status as an alumna of historically black Howard University, member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, and the lone black woman in the 2020 fray.

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker announced during Black History Month. The former mayor of Newark touts his residency in an impoverished black neighborhood in the city but has also sought to cast himself as a bridge builder — pointing out his ties to a civil rights legacy that changed his family’s trajectory with intervention from progressive whites that helped him integrate his childhood neighborhood.

In a brief interview Friday, he encouraged voters to “pull the lens back on diversity.”

“We have women in this race, we have an openly gay person in this race, we have (a) biracial person in this race, African-Americans in this race,” he said. “It is an incredible moment in American history that our field is so diverse and that voters have such qualified folks to choose from.”

Patrick himself has made relatively few references to race since launching his campaign. But as he registered this week to appear on the ballot in the New Hampshire primary, he spoke of the “skepticism” he has experienced as a black man.

“He has demonstrated an ability to win over white voters in an overwhelmingly white state,” said Democratic strategist Doug Thornell. “The question is whether he has enough time, whether he can raise the money, and whether he can carve out a compelling narrative and identity that allows him to break through. That’s a lot to accomplish in two months, but it’s not crazy.”

His path would be a challenging one. Though Patrick is not a national name, he is fairly well-known in neighboring New Hampshire, where voters saw television ads for his gubernatorial campaigns.

A strong finish in the Granite State could provide momentum heading into South Carolina, disrupting the field and leaving no clear frontrunner heading into Super Tuesday, said Thornell.

“If you look at the African American candidates running, he might be the best positioned to pull that off,” Thornell said.

Patrick’s late entry is reminiscent of Gen. Wesley Clark’s 11th-hour bid in 2003. Clark was able to briefly break through after some among the electorate worried about then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry’s path to the nomination, or that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was too liberal.

As a prominent African American who can appeal to black and white voters, Patrick could appeal to soft Biden voters looking for an alternative to Booker or Harris, or who don’t like Sen. Elizabeth Warren or Sen. Bernie Sanders’ progressive agenda, said Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod.

“He can create that ‘I’m more left than Biden, but not crazy like Warren/Sanders’ message,” Elrod said. “He could appeal to some of those voters who are on the fence and not satisfied with others in the field. He can say, ‘I can be your candidate.’”

— Errin Haines

 

Source www.amny.com

Continue Reading

Politics

White House beancounter defies Trump to tell impeachment inquiry about $400M in suspended Ukraine aid

Published

on

By

Ukraine Trump

A White House budget official defied President Trump and testified Saturday in the House impeachment inquiry about the controversial suspension of defense aid to Ukraine.

Mark Sandy, a career Office of Management and Budget official, told lawmakers that he raised questions about whether the decision by Trump acolytes to hold up $400 million in desperately needed military assistance violated laws mandating money allocated by Congress be spent, CNN reported.

The budget expert did not explain what reasons were given for the hold up in aid. He testified behind closed doors in a rare Saturday session as the impeachment investigation continues to deliver heavy blows to Trump.

Sandy acted on orders to put an initial hold on the aid in late July and the issue was later handed over to Trump political appointees.

The aid was already appropriated by Congress, meaning the White House would have had to offer a legally valid reason for withholding it.

It’s not known what explanation if any, was given for removing the suspension from Sandy’s purview.

Sandy’s testimony shone a harsh spotlight on Mick Mulvaney, who is both the OMB director and Trump’s acting chief of staff.

“Mulvaney not only has refused to testify, but actively worked to block others from complying with subpoenas,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Cal.) in a statement. “(He also) refused to provide Congress with documents relating to Trump’s suspension of Congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine.

Mulvaney admitted that Trump imposed an improper “quid pro quo” on Ukraine at a disastrous press conference although he later sought to walk back his admission. He has refused to testify to the impeachment probe.

A key contention of impeachment advocates is that Trump suspended the aid so he could use it as leverage to force Ukraine into launching bogus investigation of Trump’s Democratic rivals.

In fact, the suspension of aid shocked Ukraine officials and reportedly led them to consider announcing the corruption probes to get the cash flowing again.

By that time, in early September, the intelligence whistleblower complaint had hit the headlines, forcing the White House to reinstate the aid without getting the investigations announcement that Trump wanted.

In a statement Saturday, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, called out Mulvaney for refusing to testify.

“If Mulvaney had evidence that contradicted what we’ve already heard, he’d be eager to testify and provide documents. Instead, he’s hiding behind, and assisting in, Trump’s efforts to conceal the truth from the American people,” Schiff said.

Also on Saturday, impeachment investigators released the transcripts of depositions given by deputy assistant to the president Timothy Morrison, and Vice President Pence’s special adviser on Europe and Russia, Jennifer Williams.

In Morrison’s Oct. 31 deposition, he testified U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland told him he’d spoken with Ukrainian presidential aide Andriy Yermak about American military funding being conditioned on corruption investigations. “My concern was what Gordon was proposing about getting the Ukrainians pulled into our politics,” Morrison testified.

In Williams’ Nov. 7 deposition, she confirmed that Trump told Pence to not attend the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s inauguration in an apparent signal that he needed to pursue the corruption probes or be frozen out of the military aid.

“My understanding from my colleague—and, again, I wasn’t there for the conversation—was that the President asked the Vice President not to attend,” she testified.

Source www.nydailynews.com

By DAVE GOLDINER

Continue Reading

Politics

Social networks have been weaponized for the impeachment hearings

Published

on

By

facebook, instagram whatsapp also affected

Impeachment hearings got underway in the House of Representatives this week, as you likely noticed from the wall-to-wall coverage. The process involves the sort of high-stakes, highly partisan events that naturally dominate social feeds. What television was to impeachment in the 1970s and 1990s, Facebook and Twitter — and YouTube and maybe TikTok — will be to impeachment in 2019.

The hearings on President Donald Trump’s apparent attempted bribery of Ukraine won’t be the first time a president has had to contend with, or benefit from, a hyper-partisan media. Conservative talk radio and Fox News were in full swing when Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998, even if their rhetoric looks quaint by today’s standard. But the World Wide Web was in its infancy, and the world was then still innocent of algorithmically sorted news feeds, partisan bot armies, and state-sponsored meme warfare.

Not anymore. If the first day of hearings is any indication, social networks promise to play a powerful role in shaping the way that impeachment hearings are understood by Americans. They are also playing a powerful role in shaping the hearings themselves.

As Ryan Broderick documented at BuzzFeed, Republican lawmakers used their time during Wednesday’s hearing to promote discredited conspiracy theories that are popular on right-wing message boards:

There is one America that believes what was in former FBI director Robert Mueller’s report, that there was coordinated Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which helped the Trump campaign. But there is a second America that believes that in the summer of 2016, the Democratic National Committee colluded with Ukrainian nationals to frame the Trump campaign for collusion with Russia, implicating a Ukrainian American DNC contractor, Alexandra Chalupa, in the collusion and the California-based cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike in the subsequent cover-up.

This unfounded theory has been propped up by a 2017 Politico story; reporting from right-wing political commentator John Solomon published earlier this year in the Hill; Attorney General Bill Barr’s summer travels; the yearlong personal investigation into Ukraine conducted by Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer working for Trump; and coverage from Fox News and conservative news sites. All of that came into play during Wednesday’s hearing, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly.

After Republican members of Congress promoted these various smokescreens, right-wing media universally dismissed the hearing — either as an absurd exercise led by clowns, or as an outrageous abuse of power. Brian Stelter described the atmosphere on cable news:

Here’s what else I heard: Wednesday’s hearing was a bust. It was all just hearsay. It was a “disaster” for the Democrats and a “great day” for the Republicans. Impeachment is “stupid.” Impeachment is “fake.” There’s nothing impeachable here. There’s no reason to hold hearings. This inquiry needs to stop right now.

The message was one-sided and overwhelming. Every host and practically every guest said the Republican tribe is winning and the Democrat tribe is losing. I’m sure the president loved watching every minute of it. That’s one of the reasons why this right-wing rhetoric matters so much — because it is reassuring and emboldening Trump.

Meanwhile, if you’re reading the New York Times or watching CNN, you’re getting the sense that the case against Trump is a slam dunk, with multiple people having heard the president directly pressure his ambassador to the European Union to pursue a bribery plot. As Ezra Klein wrote recently, this impeachment is “the easiest possible test case for can our system hold a president accountable.” And yet with something like 40 percent of the country living in an alternate media universe, the basic, actual facts of the case may never penetrate into their reality.

Of course, that fear was one of the best reasons for Democrats to initiate impeachment proceedings in the first place: Show people real witnesses answering important questions over a long enough period of time — train everyone’s eyes on the same set of facts — and maybe a greater consensus will emerge.

Time will tell if they succeed. In the meantime, impeachment has proven to be big business on Facebook — where politicians are taking out highly partisan ads consistent with their respective worldviews. Emily Stewart and Rani Molla have a thorough walkthrough of how impeachment is playing out on Facebook, with Trump and Sen. Elizabeth Warren using ads to fire up their base and build their donor rolls; Tom Steyer using impeachment as a signature issue to promote his presidential candidacy; and a spice company buying tens of thousands of dollars worth of pro-impeachment advertising because they spread farther on Facebook than non-impeachment ads, resulting in a better return on investment.

Much of the debate about whether Facebook should allow political advertising noted that it represents a small fraction of the company’s business. But as the Vox writers note, that doesn’t mean it’s an insignificant business:

Facebook itself has grown into a formidable political platform in recent years, with campaigns and outside groups spending $284 million on the platform during the midterm elections, according to a report by Tech for Campaigns, a nonprofit that helps political campaigns with digital tools. While that’s just a small share of Facebook’s overall ad revenue, it’s a growing chunk of what campaigns are spending to reach constituents.

As impeachment hearings intensify, it seems likely politicians’ spending on Facebook ads will increase. And a good number of those ads, like so much about impeachment in 2019, will seem to have been created in a parallel world. In many ways, they were.

 

 

read more theverge.com

By Casey Newton

Continue Reading

Trending

TransportationVoice