Experts Now Want Trump Administration to Pursue “Good Enough Deal” with North Korea
A “good enough deal” is just code for “pretend denuclearization”:
South Korea’s proposal for a “good enough deal” with North Korea to advance the now-stalled denuclearization talks between Pyongyang and Washington is apparently gaining ground among U.S. officials and experts.
Korea Times
Cheong Wa Dae recently proposed a “good enough deal” as a possible alternative solution to both U.S. President Donald Trump’s “all-or-nothing” strategy and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s “small deal” approach.
Some U.S. experts have proposed “a phased approach” to break the stalemate ahead of a summit between Moon and Trump in Washington, D.C., scheduled from April 10 to 11.
The “good enough deal” assumes complete denuclearization, as outlined in Trump’s “all-or-nothing” strategy, is unrealistic.
It instead proposes a “couple of stages deal,” under which the U.S. and the North move onto the next stage and continue developing negotiations, as long as they find an agreement in the previous phase that was “good enough.”
This has all been tried before and did not work. Everyone remember the 2008 “cooling tower moment”:
As part of long and complex negotiations with the US, China and other nations over ending nuclear development in exchange for concessions, the reactor at Yongbyon was switched off last year. The facility is now being fully disabled, under the scrutiny of US experts.
The Guardian
North Korea’s denuclearisation took another significant step forwards yesterday when it submitted a long-awaited inventory of its atomic activities, prompting the US to initiate steps to remove Pyongyang from its list of states that sponsor terrorism.
The breakthrough, which will also see Washington lift some sanctions and Pyongyang demolish some of its nuclear facilities, is expected to jump-start six-party talks aimed at easing 55 years of tension on the peninsula.
The Kim regime does not care about having all the sanctions removed, all they need is partial sanctions relief. Partial relief allows money to come in to reinforce the lifestyle of the regime elite, increase funding for their military, and modernize their nuclear and missile capabilities. Notice I did not include improving the welfare of their people because that has obviously not been a priority for many decades in North Korea. Poor and marginally hungry people are easier to control.
This is why the focus for the Kim regime as well as the Moon administration in South Korea has been to reopen the Kaesong Industrial Complex and restart the Kumgang Resort tours as partial sanctions relief. The Kim regime also wants South Korean funded infrastructure improvements as well.
Kim Jong-un is willing to give the Trump administration their own “cooling tower moment” and smile for a few cameras to make this happen. However, they are not going to fully denuclearize for full full sanctions relief because they don’t need full sanctions relief. That is why I call all of this “pretend denuclearization“.
That is why I also think the Trump administration has been focusing on an all or nothing deal much to the chagrin of many so called experts.
“At this point, any realistic policy must begin with accepting the reality that complete and fully verifiable denuclearization is not a realistic prospect any time soon,” Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Hass wrote in a contribution to Project Syndicate magazine. “It need not and should not be abandoned as a long-term goal, but it cannot dominate near-term policy. An all-or-nothing policy toward North Korea will result in nothing.”
Korea Times
We will see over the coming months if the Trump administration listens to the advice from the expert crowd.
Nice of the traitors to self-identify.
For perspective, let’s apply this “good enough” model to some historical events.
Let’s say the colonists took the same “good enough” approach with England 250 years ago. The colonists could have negotiated to pay fewer taxes in return for some measure of local government autonomy – still under the king of course.
No, it was liberty or death; all or nothing.
How about if we negotiated with Japan in 1945 over their withdrawal from Korea? In hindsight, do Koreans appreciate the withdrawal was Complete, Verifiable, and Irreversible at the time? What would have been a “good enough” deal? Keeping so many Imperial forces and government influence on peninsula to co-exist (meaning: to eventually dominate again) with Koreans?
No, it was a violent cessation; all or nothing.
All or nothing is how we play. Get used to it, get on-board with it, or get the fuck out of the way.
Also, TANSTAAFL.