South Korea to play 'mediator' to resolve North Korea-U.S. summit doubts - official

[webfact]

South Korea to play 'mediator' to resolve North Korea-U.S. summit doubts - official

By Joyce Lee

 

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un meets with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in this May 9, 2018 photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) in Pyongyang May 10, 2018. KCNA / via REUTERS

 

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea is seeking to mediate to bridge the gap between the United States and North Korea as they appear to have "some kind of difference in stances" ahead of a planned summit, an official at South Korea's presidential Blue House said on Thursday.

 

The comments come after Pyongyang on Wednesday threatened to pull out of the June 12 summit in Singapore with U.S. President Donald Trump, saying it might not attend if Washington continues to demand it unilaterally abandon its nuclear arsenal.

 

The Blue House official said the South Korean government or President Moon Jae-in intends to more actively perform "the role of a mediator" in various channels between South Korea, the U.S. and North Korea.

 

Trump will host South Korean President Moon Jae-in at a summit at the White House on May 22, and the two are expected to discuss the upcoming summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

 

The Blue House intends to "sufficiently convey (to the United States) what we've discerned about North Korea's position and attitude through the summit on the 22nd, and sufficiently convey the United States' position to North Korea," thereby helping to bridge the gap between their positions, the official said.

 

"Seeing the announced statements and responses from North Korea and the United States, we see the two parties as having a sincere and serious attitude (to stand in each other's shoes)," the official said.

 

South Korea intends to continue discussions with North Korea to hold high-level talks North Korea cancelled on Wednesday, Blue House said in a statement on Thursday. North Korea called off the talks, blaming U.S.-South Korean military exercises.

 

Meanwhile, Chinese government's top diplomat, Wang Yi, said on Thursday the measures North Korea has taken to ease tension on the Korean peninsula should be acknowledged, and all other parties, especially the United States, should cherish the opportunity for peace.

 

(Reporting by Joyce Lee; Additional reporting by Michael Martina in BEIJING; Editing by Michael Perry)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters South Korea to play 'mediator' to resolve North Korea-U.S. summit doubts - official

[stevenl]

Just cut the US out and have talks between North and South Korea.

[sirineou]

13 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Just cut the US out and have talks between North and South Korea.

 Unfortunately the NK is not arming itself to defend against Sk but against the US . Any agreements between NK and SK are not worth the paper they are written on if the US is not a party to them.

[Expatthailover]

I doubt pompeo will last 6 months in the role with gaff ridden clowns all around him in the guise of trump, bolton and Giuliani 

[AsiaHand]

This headline sounds like a scared school child being the mediator between the" School Bully" and the "Protector of small children" for his own self.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Expatthailover said:

I doubt pompeo will last 6 months in the role with gaff ridden clowns all around him in the guise of trump, bolton and Giuliani 

So you consider Pompeo a force for reason, and not a player in a good cop/bad cop pantomime?

[Morch]

8 hours ago, stevenl said:

Just cut the US out and have talks between North and South Korea.

 

Doubt the SK's are daft.

[lannarebirth]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So you consider Pompeo a force for reason, and not a player in a good cop/bad cop pantomime?

South Korea's the good cop.

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

South Korea's the good cop.

Seems unlikely given domestic political realities. Why would the government of the south make a pitch for an effort that was doomed to failure because of North Korean dishonesty? To make it easier for the Americans to use force when the talks fail? I don't think the South Koreans are too thrilled about that prospect.

[AsiaHand]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Doubt the SK's are daft.

 

9 hours ago, sirineou said:

 Unfortunately the NK is not arming itself to defend against Sk but against the US . Any agreements between NK and SK are not worth the paper they are written on if the US is not a party to them.

The US Military presence is the ONLY reason that the North has not invaded the South. Period.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, AsiaHand said:

 

The US Military presence is the ONLY reason that the North has not invaded the South. Period.

That and the fact the South Korea has far more formidable armed forces than the north. 

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

That and the fact the South Korea has far more formidable armed forces than the north. 

 

I doubt that SK is eager to test the strength of your argument.

Artillery. Seoul. Ruthlessness.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I doubt that SK is eager to test the strength of your argument.

Artillery. Seoul. Ruthlessness.

You just doubt it? I am sure that they are not eager. But that observation has exactly what to do with the respective strength of the North's armed forces vs. the South's?

Edited May 17, 2018 by bristolboy

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You just doubt it? I am sure that they are not eager. But that observation has exactly what to do with the respective strength of the North's armed forces vs. the South's?

 

Try reading the second line, perhaps.

 

The SK armed forces may indeed be formidable. But, leaving the US military presence and commitments out of it, I think that NK is better poised when it comes to effective offensive capabilities, inflicting meaningful damage and possibly making decisive moves. This being due to means already in place, command structure and decision making more authoritative, plus a known amount of ruthlessness (or callousness) with regard to relevant norms.

 

IMO, other than the US military presence and commitments, another major factor working in favor of SK is the Kims probably being weary of the internal effects a war might have relating their rule.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Try reading the second line, perhaps.

 

The SK armed forces may indeed be formidable. But, leaving the US military presence and commitments out of it, I think that NK is better poised when it comes to effective offensive capabilities, inflicting meaningful damage and possibly making decisive moves. This being due to means already in place, command structure and decision making more authoritative, plus a known amount of ruthlessness (or callousness) with regard to relevant norms.

 

IMO, other than the US military presence and commitments, another major factor working in favor of SK is the Kims probably being weary of the internal effects a war might have relating their rule.

One thing you're leaving out: the North has virtually no air force. Pretty hard to wage an offensive without air cover. Come to think of it, make that virtually impossible.

There are lots of other things you're leaving out too, but this one is decisive.

[Morch]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

One thing you're leaving out: the North has virtually no air force. Pretty hard to wage an offensive without air cover. Come to think of it, make that virtually impossible.

There are lots of other things you're leaving out too, but this one is decisive.

 

I'm not leaving it out - it was discussed to death on past topics. You've participated in at least some of them topics, back when you were looking for your password.

 

NK is poised to strike Seoul (and other targets) using artillery. I think that on a surprise attack, they could inflict serious casualties and damage, disrupt commerce and governance. If they would manage to generate enough shock and awe in a short  period of time, well...lets say I doubt SK resilience. More so, perhaps with regard to the civilian/political elements.

 

Not necessarily referring to a scenario in which Kim-takes-all. That would require a whole lot more to go wrong. But a limited scope move - that's a different ballgame.

[bristolboy]

If this were a private colloquy and if in fact we did have such discussions in the past, your comments about that being sufficient might make sense. But since this is a forum and  open to all, including those who might just  possibly  have been living  a life of prayer and fasting in remote caves up until recently and may have missed the points you may have raised in earlier threads, it doesn't.

And your reply still doesn't take into account the absolute and utter superiority of the South Korean Air Force.

Or the superior training and armament of its soldiers

Or the fact that North Korean soldiers suffer widely from malnutrition.

For North Korea to wage a war against a nation with an economy as mighty and resilient as the South's, means it would need one as well.It just doesn't have the resources. Not only is it massively poorer, its population is only about 40% of the South's.

[stevenl]

17 hours ago, sirineou said:

 Unfortunately the NK is not arming itself to defend against Sk but against the US . Any agreements between NK and SK are not worth the paper they are written on if the US is not a party to them.

Doesn't mean they have to negotiate. Let SK do that, and if happy, tell USA to go home.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

If this were a private colloquy and if in fact we did have such discussions in the past, your comments about that being sufficient might make sense. But since this is a forum and  open to all, including those who might just  possibly  have been living  a life of prayer and fasting in remote caves up until recently and may have missed the points you may have raised in earlier threads, it doesn't.

And your reply still doesn't take into account the absolute and utter superiority of the South Korean Air Force.

Or the superior training and armament of its soldiers

Or the fact that North Korean soldiers suffer widely from malnutrition.

For North Korea to wage a war against a nation with an economy as mighty and resilient as the South's, means it would need one as well.It just doesn't have the resources. Not only is it massively poorer, its population is only about 40% of the South's.

 

Got to love the "if in fact we did..." bit - who do you think you're fooling? And may I point out, most posters commenting, following or clicking "likes" were similarly represented in them past topics. I get it that some feel the need to re-hash each and every bit over and over again, or pretend each instance of the same is a new one - but can't see there's a compulsion to oblige.

 

Let's try again, hopefully without you ignoring what I post in favor of your usual pointless argument-for-argument-sake style...

 

If taking the US military presence (and other related commitments) out of the equation, SK stands to lose a fair bit of deterrence - attacking SK is one thing, getting the US involved, a different ballgame.

 

I don't think North Korea's capabilities and circumstances make a scenario of it totally defeating and conquering SK a reality. It would take too long, stretch NK lines too far, and likely some international intervention would put a halt to such an effort.

 

A limited move, with limited goals is something else. If it could secure some element of surprise, then yes - I believe NK is capable of pulling through something as described in previous posts and topics. A swift strike, preferably crippling or taking out central decision making elements, then suggesting (or accepting) a cease-fire/truce. It doesn't necessarily follow that SK will be fully subjugated.

 

The significance of SK air-superiority advantage is somewhat dulled, if hostilities are planned ahead as a short-term, concentrated offensive, focusing on an urban area. Attacking NK's well fortified artillery positions or targeting enemy forces within a city aren't easy tasks (even currently, with US support). Bringing the SK air power to bear on NK targets is, again, something which would take longer to take effect. And that's without mentioning air-defenses.

 

The differences alluded to with regard to ground forces might also be countered under such a scenario. It's not as if all of NK's armed forces are useless, and for a limited scale operation, requiring limited resources, could utilize better equipped and trained units, rather than rely on masses. If there's no mass ground confrontation, the SK advantage will be of lesser consequence. Conducting a full scale ground counter-offensive on NK may take too long to carry out effectively.

 

If the target of such a limited move would be Seoul, the consequences and effects for SK's economy and governance could be dire. While I'm sure that SK got contingency plans, that's not quite the same thing as carrying them out. All the more so if several decision making nodes are simultaneously compromised.

 

As for the subject of the countries' economic disparity - a full-scale war, which may or may not drag on for weeks and months is definitely an issue (and in this sense, perhaps keeping NK on the edge of poverty may be a cynical national security consideration). But possibly less so for a limited move, especially if terms can be quickly negotiated.

 

IMO, NK may be more resilient to adversity and hardship, simply by the "virtue" of habit and the Kim family dictatorial rule. SK is richer, more advanced and whatnot - but perhaps this relies on peace time conditions maintained. It is also much more reliant on information technology, which is both a strength and a weakness. The usual issues of public opinion, internal divisions and all the package that comes with being a democracy may also be something of a mixed bag in some situations.

 

[Morch]

5 hours ago, stevenl said:

Doesn't mean they have to negotiate. Let SK do that, and if happy, tell USA to go home.

 

I think that boat sailed once Kim got a hold of his toys, and posted that clip...