Pattaya sees rise in independent Chinese tourists amid decline in group tours

[webfact]

China's Xi says hopes to promote relations with North Korea: KCNA

 

China's President Xi Jinping claps after his speech as he and other new Politburo Standing Committee members meet with the press at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China October 25, 2017. REUTERS/Jason Lee

 

SEOUL (Reuters) - Chinese President Xi Jinping replied to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's congratulatory message on China's recently completed Communist Party Congress, saying he hopes to promote ties between the two countries, North Korea's official news agency KCNA said.

 

"I wish that under the new situation, the Chinese side would make efforts with the DPRK side to promote relations between the two parties and the two countries to sustainable soundness and stable development and thus make a positive contribution to ... defending regional peace and stability and common prosperity," Xi wrote in the message dated Nov. 1, according to the KCNA.

 

DPRK stands for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, North Korea's official name.

 

Kim Jong Un sent a rare congratulatory message to Xi last week at the end of China's all-important Communist Party Congress, wishing him "great success" as head of the nation.

 

The friendly exchanges by the two leaders come as China is being urged by the international community to do more to rein in the North's missile and nuclear tests that have raised tensions globally.

 

China, the North's sole major ally, has grown increasingly frustrated with Pyongyang following the isolated state's defiant pursuit of its nuclear and missile programmes, repeatedly calling for restraint and urging all sides to speak and act carefully.

 

Beijing accounts for more than 90 percent of trade with North Korea and has been called upon by several countries, especially the United States, to step up its efforts to implement U.N. Security Council sanctions restricting trade with the country.

 

China and North Korea often exchange routine diplomatic correspondence and ceremonial letters on political anniversaries or political promotions, although personal messages to and from the leaders tend to be few.

 

(Reporting by Soyoung Kim in Seoul, editing by G Crosse and Tom Brown)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-02

[craigt3365]

What choice does Kim have?  China is the #1 country still doing business with North Korea.  He's got to kowtow to them.

[BuaBS]

Xi should just say that an attack on NK is an attack on China.

US would have no choice than backing off and NK problem is solved.

[craigt3365]

27 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

Xi should just say that an attack on NK is an attack on China.

US would have no choice than backing off and NK problem is solved.

Xi isn't happy with NK.  They'd never stick their neck out like that for NK.  Plus, with that mountain about ready to collapse and release radiation, they also want NK to stop the tests.

[Thaidream]

Xi is never going to put his leadership or his country in the line of fire for NKorea- a rogue state which is a clear and present danger to the World. A war  between China and America would be disastrous to the World for obvious reasons but more so to China- it would be destroyed and sent back to the Stone age.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how people sitting in the safety of their own homes advocate actions that would create a war- which they will never fight but would recommend others fight for them.

[Tchooptip]

China and North Korea, two brother countries in their trampling of human rights. 

[BuaBS]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Xi isn't happy with NK.  They'd never stick their neck out like that for NK.  Plus, with that mountain about ready to collapse and release radiation, they also want NK to stop the tests.

Yes they would.

 

About the ready to collapse mountain : inject alot of concrete into the dome .... and who has a lot of concrete : China.

 

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

Xi is never going to put his leadership or his country in the line of fire for NKorea- a rogue state which is a clear and present danger to the World. A war  between China and America would be disastrous to the World for obvious reasons but more so to China- it would be destroyed and sent back to the Stone age.

 

There would be no war !

More disastrous to China ?? The US would be sent back to before the Stone age.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, BuaBS said:

Xi should just say that an attack on NK is an attack on China.

US would have no choice than backing off and NK problem is solved.

 

Xi Should Make My Wet Dream Fantasies Come True, Poster Says.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Morch

[Thaidream]

Another anti American poster who knows nothing about the military capabilities of China or the United States-  China wants to preserve the Communist Party at all costs and his military arsenal is inferior to even the UK  or  France and he definitely won't tangle with the US. His existence would end as well as all the money the Party provides to the masses to keep them compliant. 

America  has targets on every NKorea weapons site as well as all Chinese military installations; industrial complexes and Government entities and China knows it. Stop the Anti American rant and wishing for a war- you won't fight it but brave soldiers on each side will while you sit home  smiling at the destruction.

[craigt3365]

32 minutes ago, BuaBS said:

Yes they would.

 

About the ready to collapse mountain : inject alot of concrete into the dome .... and who has a lot of concrete : China.

 

There would be no war !

More disastrous to China ?? The US would be sent back to before the Stone age.

I don't think that mountain could support a load of concrete.  It's already collapsing. LOL

 

US sent back to before the stone age?  What?  Never happen.

[BuaBS]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

I don't think that mountain could support a load of concrete.  It's already collapsing. LOL

Inject into the underground dome not ontop of the mountain !

 

Yes the reported/estimated nuclear capacity of China is small but enough to get the US to back off from NK.

Meanwhile Kim can work on more nukes & rockets in secret.

 

My suggestion of Xi backing NK would make bloodshed and war much more unlikely .

Ofcourse Putin could back NK too ...

Edited November 2, 2017 by BuaBS

[Thaidream]

The solution is quite simple for China- put pressure on NKorea through economic means forcing the NK to accept allowing China to take control of its nuclear weapons and  NK stops its missile program.

The US, NKorea and the United Nations Command sign a peace treaty in which the Chinese guarantee the existence of NKorea and the US the existence of SKorea.  The US withdraws its forces and relocates them to a nearby country. The United Nations provides inspections of both NKorea and S Korea. All parties agree to a nuclear free Korean peninsula.

 

The US would agree to a peaceful resolution but I can guarantee that China's nuclear arsenal does not scare America and the Chinese would never dare even threaten to use it.  Without America market access China becomes a  third rate power  and instability threatens its leadership and the Communist Party. China's technology is inferior to America's as well as its fighting force and military armaments. The Chinese are no match for either the UK; France; Australia or any other modern military power and they know it. Thinking the US would back off from the Chinese is absurd and shows a lack of understanding geopolitical reality.

[baboon]

57 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The solution is quite simple for China- put pressure on NKorea through economic means forcing the NK to accept allowing China to take control of its nuclear weapons and  NK stops its missile program.

The US, NKorea and the United Nations Command sign a peace treaty in which the Chinese guarantee the existence of NKorea and the US the existence of SKorea.  The US withdraws its forces and relocates them to a nearby country. The United Nations provides inspections of both NKorea and S Korea. All parties agree to a nuclear free Korean peninsula.

 

The US would agree to a peaceful resolution but I can guarantee that China's nuclear arsenal does not scare America and the Chinese would never dare even threaten to use it.  Without America market access China becomes a  third rate power  and instability threatens its leadership and the Communist Party. China's technology is inferior to America's as well as its fighting force and military armaments. The Chinese are no match for either the UK; France; Australia or any other modern military power and they know it. Thinking the US would back off from the Chinese is absurd and shows a lack of understanding geopolitical reality.

Just one problem: The US might agree to back off as part of a deal, but what the DPRK would want is an election-proof guarantee that they won't find themselves back at square one a few years down the road. How to do this...?

[Thaidream]

A peace treaty signed by  all parties ending the Korea War which would be endorsed by the United Nations since the Korean War was authorized by the UN should suffice as well as an addendum signed by both China, NK and SK and the US.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

A peace treaty signed by  all parties ending the Korea War which would be endorsed by the United Nations since the Korean War was authorized by the UN should suffice as well as an addendum signed by both China, NK and SK and the US.

 

I think @baboon is referencing ongoing issue pertaining to the nuclear agreement with Iran. It's a good point, and one thing Trump did to undermine USA credibility and, by extension, international cooperation in general. The flip side is that NK is not particularly well known for keeping its side of a bargain or adhering to acceptable international conduct.

[baboon]

6 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

A peace treaty signed by  all parties ending the Korea War which would be endorsed by the United Nations since the Korean War was authorized by the UN should suffice as well as an addendum signed by both China, NK and SK and the US.

I like the way you are thinking, but imagine they would still be fearful of a maverick president ripping up such an agreement and the co-signatories be damned. It doesn't hurt to hope, however. 

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, baboon said:

I like the way you are thinking, but imagine they would still be fearful of a maverick president ripping up such an agreement and the co-signatories be damned. It doesn't hurt to hope, however. 

 

Indeed, about as reliable as accepting Kim's signature. The good news is that Trump will be out of office, one way or the other. Hopefully enough of a wake up call not to be emulated by future candidates and presidents. Kim, on the other hand, is here to stay.

[Thaidream]

The Iran Document is a negotiation between the US and Iran and bound by certain conditions. While Trump can voice his opposition - it is up to the US Congress at this point to then alter the agreement. I doubt that they will do this as cooler heads know the repercussions would be very detrimental to US credibility. 

 

An agreement with NKorea would be a peace treaty  under the auspices of the United Nations with an addendum by Korea' China and the USA and witnessed by the UK; Australia and others who participated in the KOrean War.  I do not think a US President in the future could scuttle the agreement, especially with the UN and other Nations as signatories.As part of the agreement- a sentence could be added indicating that a vote of the US Congress to end the agreement would be necessary It would behoove China to convince NKorea to open it's society to full trade; an unfettered Internet and other actions to bring the country into the 21st Century. If Kim wa convinced his regime would not be threatened- he might well buy into it. At some point money would flow into NKorea with a cheap labor force and a potential for a company to make a product that is exportable to the World.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The Iran Document is a negotiation between the US and Iran and bound by certain conditions. While Trump can voice his opposition - it is up to the US Congress at this point to then alter the agreement. I doubt that they will do this as cooler heads know the repercussions would be very detrimental to US credibility. 

 

An agreement with NKorea would be a peace treaty  under the auspices of the United Nations with an addendum by Korea' China and the USA and witnessed by the UK; Australia and others who participated in the KOrean War.  I do not think a US President in the future could scuttle the agreement, especially with the UN and other Nations as signatories.As part of the agreement- a sentence could be added indicating that a vote of the US Congress to end the agreement would be necessary It would behoove China to convince NKorea to open it's society to full trade; an unfettered Internet and other actions to bring the country into the 21st Century. If Kim wa convinced his regime would not be threatened- he might well buy into it. At some point money would flow into NKorea with a cheap labor force and a potential for a company to make a product that is exportable to the World.

 

The "Iran Document" is actually an agreement between Iran, the USA and a few other parties, with the involvement of the UN and other international bodies. If it was as simple as bilateral deal, things wouldn't be as complicated as they are right now due to Trump's actions.

 

 

[baboon]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Indeed, about as reliable as accepting Kim's signature. The good news is that Trump will be out of office, one way or the other. Hopefully enough of a wake up call not to be emulated by future candidates and presidents. Kim, on the other hand, is here to stay.

Yes, so then it is reasonable to assume continuation of DPRK policy based on your premise that "Kim, on the other hand, is here to stay." We have his position nailed down, therefore.

 

On the other hand, we have "Hopefully enough of a wake up call not to be emulated by future candidates and presidents." That is an unknown by your own argument, so not as valid as "Indeed, about as reliable as accepting Kim's signature."

 

So we know exactly where to look if Kim's side violates any agreement. Who to target on the other side is not so certain. Hence a tremendous difficulty in organising any kind of workable arrangement to the satisfaction of either party. However I hope the diplomats can keep plugging along...

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I think @baboon is referencing ongoing issue pertaining to the nuclear agreement with Iran. It's a good point, and one thing Trump did to undermine USA credibility and, by extension, international cooperation in general. The flip side is that NK is not particularly well known for keeping its side of a bargain or adhering to acceptable international conduct.

Trump is not helping, that's for sure.  But Iran does push the boundaries of that agreement.  Not included in the agreement is support for terrorist organizations, which is causing major problems in the ME and elsewhere.  And Iran has broken it's promise in the past.

[craigt3365]

5 hours ago, baboon said:

Yes, so then it is reasonable to assume continuation of DPRK policy based on your premise that "Kim, on the other hand, is here to stay." We have his position nailed down, therefore.

 

On the other hand, we have "Hopefully enough of a wake up call not to be emulated by future candidates and presidents." That is an unknown by your own argument, so not as valid as "Indeed, about as reliable as accepting Kim's signature."

 

So we know exactly where to look if Kim's side violates any agreement. Who to target on the other side is not so certain. Hence a tremendous difficulty in organising any kind of workable arrangement to the satisfaction of either party. However I hope the diplomats can keep plugging along...

No easy answers.  A big problem will be how to verify NK's compliance.  Iran won't let inspectors onto military bases.  Guess what, that's where they found violations in the past. LOL

[Morch]

10 hours ago, baboon said:

Yes, so then it is reasonable to assume continuation of DPRK policy based on your premise that "Kim, on the other hand, is here to stay." We have his position nailed down, therefore.

 

On the other hand, we have "Hopefully enough of a wake up call not to be emulated by future candidates and presidents." That is an unknown by your own argument, so not as valid as "Indeed, about as reliable as accepting Kim's signature."

 

So we know exactly where to look if Kim's side violates any agreement. Who to target on the other side is not so certain. Hence a tremendous difficulty in organising any kind of workable arrangement to the satisfaction of either party. However I hope the diplomats can keep plugging along...

 

We're looking at the same picture, seeing different things. If Kim is a constant, then this spells trouble trusting him to keep agreements made. Trump, on the other hand, is more of an anomaly - which is likely to be corrected. This would mean that the outlook for trusting the USA (Trump's damage done aside) is still a better prospect than relying on Kim.

 

Presidents (or leaders of any democratic countries) come and go. That's part of the system. The convention, which is generally adhered to, is that international agreements persist (even if there are changes in nuance). IMO, the reaction to Trump's disregard for such conventions indicates that it is not acceptable and that it will not be the new normal in the future. If applying the argument presented in the post above, it would seem to favor signing agreements between leaders who are not democratically elected, seeing their stability as an asset.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

Trump is not helping, that's for sure.  But Iran does push the boundaries of that agreement.  Not included in the agreement is support for terrorist organizations, which is causing major problems in the ME and elsewhere.  And Iran has broken it's promise in the past.

 

Trump's take (such as it is) on Iran's compliance is not widely supported even within his own administration, never mind other signatories and monitoring agencies.

 

Any such agreement with North Korea is bound to be troubled by similar issues of boundaries pushed, controversial interpretations of grey areas, assessing compliance, ongoing antagonism and confrontational rhetoric. Comes part and parcel with how things are. The issues are usually less to do with the existence of transgressions, and more with them being of a nature or a mass justifying action over preserving the framework.