Trump administration plans to nominate Harry Harris as South Korea envoy

[webfact]

Trump administration plans to nominate Harry Harris as South Korea envoy

By David Brunnstrom and John Walcott

 

FILE PHOTO - U.S. Navy Admiral Harry Harris Jr, head of the Pacific Command, attends at a Fullerton Lecture on "Challenges, Opportunities and Innovation in the Indo-Asia-Pacific", in Singapore October 17, 2017. REUTERS/Edgar Su

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration plans to nominate Admiral Harry Harris, the head of the U.S. Pacific Command already nominated to be the next U.S. ambassador to Australia, to fill the long-vacant post of ambassador to South Korea instead, U.S. officials said on Tuesday.

 

President Donald Trump's nominee to be secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, had asked Harris to take the key post in Seoul, which has been vacant since Trump took office in January last year, a source with knowledge of the situation said.

 

Three U.S. officials confirmed the plan to nominate Harris, who was in Washington on Tuesday for a Senate committee hearing on his Australia nomination. That hearing was postponed indefinitely.

 

“The national security situation on the Korean Peninsula is of the highest priority,” one of the officials said when asked to confirm the switch in nominations. "Our relationship with Australia is and remains steadfast."

 

The sources spoke on condition of anonymity. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

 

Trump nominated Harris, who is known for hawkish views on China's military expansion, to serve as ambassador to Australia in February, but filling the Seoul post has become even more of a priority as diplomatic efforts to resolve the crisis over North Korea's nuclear weapons have intensified.

 

South Korean President Moon Jae-in is due to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Thursday and Trump has said he will hold an unprecedented summit with Kim himself in May or June.

 

Pompeo told his Senate confirmation hearing this month that filling Seoul and a handful of other diplomatic posts required "immediate attention."

 

"I will find what I believe to be the best fit to execute America's diplomatic mission around the world," he said.

 

The White House said in February it was no longer considering Victor Cha, a former official who questioned the wisdom of a preventative military strike on North Korea being mulled by the administration earlier this year.

 

Harris told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee last month Washington could not be overly optimistic about the outcome of a Trump-Kim summit and must go into it with "eyes wide open."

 

He said he was encouraged by the prospect of a summit, but North Korea remained the biggest Asia-Pacific security threat.

 

Harris said he believed Kim would like to see reunification of the Korean peninsula under his rule, and sought respect, status and security through the possession of nuclear weapons.

 

Trump said on Tuesday Kim had been "very honourable" and discussions on a planned summit were going well, but tempered expectations for any quick denuclearization deal by saying "it may be we're all wasting a lot of time."

 

Andrew Shearer, a former Australian national security adviser now at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said there would be "intense disappointment" in Australia - like South Korea, a U.S. ally - about the switch in nominations.

 

"Harris is well known and highly respected there, and his nomination enjoyed strong bipartisan support. There's no doubt he would have been a highly effective advocate at a time when there is growing debate in Australia about the U.S. alliance and its implications for the country's substantial economic interests in China.

 

"It would be surprising if the Australia government doesn’t feel let down," he said. "That said, no-one doubts the urgency of the North Korea threat and Canberra has little choice but to take it on the chin."

 

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom, John Walcott and Matt Spetalnick in Washington; Editing by James Dalgleish)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-04-25

 

[Srikcir]

Trump is sure infatuated with generals and admirals.

[samran]

And threw Australia under thr bus in the process. Thanks Donnie..

[simple1]

8 hours ago, samran said:

And threw Australia under the bus in the process. Thanks Donnie..

In today's media in Oz a lot of criticism of the Trump Administration serious backlog with appointing Ambassadors (e.g. 18 months without a US Ambassador for Oz) and apparent lack of interest to serve the Trump Administration.

[lanista]

I bet his family is pissed. Instead of heading off to OZ with all its western comforts theyre now packing their bags for a hardship post in the bleak  Korean penninsula  100 km from  a fatboy with nukes.

 

Edited April 26, 2018 by lanista

[Expatthailover]

16 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Trump is sure infatuated with generals and admirals.

Yes for a man who actively avoided conscription ( actual bravery is an issue) this fascination is somewhat ironic

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, lanista said:

I bet his family is pissed. Instead of heading off to OZ with all its western comforts theyre now packing their bags for a hardship post in the bleak  Korean penninsula  100 km from  a fatboy with nukes.

 

Seoul no western comforts? Very nice city, but yes, close to Kim.

[heybruce]

22 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Trump is sure infatuated with generals and admirals.

Under a normal president this would be a concern.  Under Trump, I'd rather see generals and admirals than Fox News pundits and businessmen with criminal links to Russia.

[mrwebb8825]

On 26/4/2561 at 5:14 AM, simple1 said:

In today's media in Oz a lot of criticism of the Trump Administration serious backlog with appointing Ambassadors (e.g. 18 months without a US Ambassador for Oz) and apparent lack of interest to serve the Trump Administration.

The backlog isn't due to lack of nominees, it's due to the lazy committees that won't vet them because they don't like President Trump. He has over 200 nominees waiting to be approved.

[Srikcir]

37 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

it's due to the lazy committees

Aren't those committees Republican majorities?

Then we have the Republican-controlled Senate that last December forced Trump to resubmit almost 100 nominees after Senate failed to approve them and left town without voting to keep them under consideration. And that's after the Senate agreed to hold over another 150 of Mr Trump’s nominations for 2018. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nominees-senate-failed-to-approve-a8125571.html

 

Democrats deserve some blame but it's more the reason because they fault the qualifications of dozens Trump's nominees.  https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/22/trump-nominees-democrats-block-314775

But frankly, any deliberate delays out of political spite caused by the Democrats don't compare to the year long delay by Republicans to even allow a hearing on Obama's Supreme Court nominee Garland.

 

[mrwebb8825]

On 28/4/2561 at 7:25 PM, Srikcir said:

But frankly, any deliberate delays out of political spite caused by the Democrats don't compare to the year long delay by Republicans to even allow a hearing on Obama's Supreme Court nominee Garland.

You and I both know (if you're honest with yourself) that Obama was trying to get 1 more notch in his failed belt on his way out the door for good to try and make it easier on HC whom he was sure would be his 8 year clone. The republicans were sure they would win the White House in 2016 and wanted someone more aliened with their policies and not have to be stuck with an Obama buddy.

I'm not claiming all republicans are acting correctly either. Some are acting quite the fool and need to be replaced. One thing President Trump has proven is that DC is FULL of despicable people and he's working very hard on trying to shovel at least a few of them out and return the government to the people.

How's that line written: "A government for the people, by the people, of the people..." but unfortunately it has become a sort of a multi-lateral dictatorship where less than 1,000 people have any say what-so-ever.

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

You and I both know (if you're honest with yourself) that Obama was trying to get 1 more notch in his failed belt on his way out the door for good to try and make it easier on HC whom he was sure would be his 8 year clone. The republicans were sure they would win the White House in 2016 and wanted someone more aliened with their policies and not have to be stuck with an Obama buddy.

I'm not claiming all republicans are acting correctly either. Some are acting quite the fool and need to be replaced. One thing President Trump has proven is that DC is FULL of despicable people and he's working very hard on trying to shovel at least a few of them out and return the government to the people.

How's that line written: "A government for the people, by the people, of the people..." but unfortunately it has become a sort of a multi-lateral dictatorship where less than 1,000 people have any say what-so-ever.

By appointing Goldman Sachs alumni to run the economy and serve the interests of Wall Street?

[mrwebb8825]

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

By appointing Goldman Sachs alumni to run the economy and serve the interests of Wall Street?

IF, by that you mean, business people who have been doing business all their lives and created wealth for themselves by creating millions of jobs for others and NOT typical politicians who are only concerned with lining their own pockets at the expense of millions of people, then, yes. 

 

ETA: Wasn't it HC who was being paid $750,000 a speech to Wall Street people and Obama at his last WHCD who said he's planning on leaving that job and heading out to "Make some serious Tubmans..."?

Edited April 30, 2018 by mrwebb8825

[bristolboy]

18 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

IF, by that you mean, business people who have been doing business all their lives and created wealth for themselves by creating millions of jobs for others and NOT typical politicians who are only concerned with lining their own pockets at the expense of millions of people, then, yes. 

 

ETA: Wasn't it HC who was being paid $750,000 a speech to Wall Street people and Obama at his last WHCD who said he's planning on leaving that job and heading out to "Make some serious Tubmans..."?

Really? Wall Street financiers creating jobs for millions of people? Goldman Sachs? Gary Cohn the guy who the mortgage division of Goldman Sachs reported to? The people who very nearly wrecked the American economy with their financial flimflams? The very same people that Trump himself denounced during his campaign?

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, mrwebb8825 said:

You and I both know (if you're honest with yourself) that Obama was trying to get 1 more notch in his failed belt on his way out the door for good to try and make it easier on HC whom he was sure would be his 8 year clone. The republicans were sure they would win the White House in 2016 and wanted someone more aliened with their policies and not have to be stuck with an Obama buddy.

I'm not claiming all republicans are acting correctly either. Some are acting quite the fool and need to be replaced. One thing President Trump has proven is that DC is FULL of despicable people and he's working very hard on trying to shovel at least a few of them out and return the government to the people.

How's that line written: "A government for the people, by the people, of the people..." but unfortunately it has become a sort of a multi-lateral dictatorship where less than 1,000 people have any say what-so-ever.

Is your plan to throw as much mud as possible and assume that no one will bother addressing it all?

 

This thread isn't about Obama, but I'll note that he assumed office during an economic free-fall threatening to create another great depression and left office with the country enjoying years of solid economic growth and low employment.  Hardly a "failed belt".

 

There is also no precedent to block a President's Supreme Court nomination during an election year, the precedent is the opposite:  " There have been only six outstanding court vacancies in an election year since 1900, and in every case the vacancy was filled. "   https://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/cruz-rubio-twist-court-precedent/

 

Regarding Trump demonstrating DC is "full of despicable people", it certainly is now.  Has any President lost so many key people because they couldn't fill out security forms honestly?  Has any President appointed so many people to key positions that needed ethics waivers?  Why has Trump refused to release his tax records and try to make the White House visitor logs secret?  That last part wasn't a complete success: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-11/white-house-posts-lists-of-lobbyists-to-agencies-after-lawsuit

Edited April 30, 2018 by heybruce

[bristolboy]

On 4/26/2018 at 8:03 AM, lanista said:

I bet his family is pissed. Instead of heading off to OZ with all its western comforts theyre now packing their bags for a hardship post in the bleak  Korean penninsula  100 km from  a fatboy with nukes.

 

South Korea bleak? I think you're about 60 years behind the times.