U.S. will look at ramping up sanctions if North Korea does not denuclearise - Bolton

[webfact]

U.S. will look at ramping up sanctions if North Korea does not denuclearise - Bolton

 

U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton prepares for an interview to Fox News outside of the White House in Washington, U.S., March 5, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump's national security adviser, John Bolton, said on Tuesday that the United States would look at ramping up sanctions on North Korea if Pyongyang did not scrap its nuclear weapons programme.

 

Bolton told Fox Business Network that following the Hanoi summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Washington would see whether Pyongyang was committed to giving up its "nuclear weapons programme and everything associated with it."

 

"If they're not willing to do it, then I think President Trump has been very clear ... they're not going to get relief from the crushing economic sanctions that have been imposed on them and we'll look at ramping those sanctions up in fact," said Bolton, a hardliner who has advocated a tough approach to North Korea in the past.

 

His comments came days after the Feb. 27-28 denuclearisation summit between Trump and Kim broke down over differences on how far North Korea was willing to limit its nuclear programme and the degree of U.S. willingness to ease sanctions.

 

Earlier on Tuesday, two U.S. think tanks and South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported that North Korea had restored part of a missile launch site it began to dismantle after pledging to do so in the first summit with Trump last year.

 

Yonhap quoted lawmakers briefed by South Korea's National Intelligence Service (NIS) as saying that the work was taking place at the Tongchang-ri launch site and involved replacing a roof and a door at the facility.

 

Satellite images seen by 38 North, a Washington-based North Korea project, showed that structures on the launch pad had been rebuilt sometime between Feb. 16 and March 2, Jenny Town, managing editor at the project and an analyst at the Stimson Center think tank, told Reuters.

 

(Reporting by David Alexander and David Brunnstrom; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2019-03-06

[mtls2005]

What a pathetic strategy.

 

trump is like Mr. Miyagi: "sanctions on, sanctions off", without the teaching effect.

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2019 by mtls2005

[keith101]

With news coming from South Korea that the testing site is being rebuilt you had better start ramping up the sanctions because he will never denuclearise its whats keeping him in power .

[lannarebirth]

Quote

What a pathetic strategy.

 

Do tell, what is the better strategy?

[Snig27]

Well, that worked out well for dim Donny. We are back pretty much where we started, although thanks to Don, Kim and NK have been given far more geopolitical legitimacy and China is more or less back trading with them as if sanctions never existed. 

Bolton and Trump are both complete clowns. 

[mtls2005]

11 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Do tell, what is the better strategy?

 

Well, I don't profess to be an expert in just about anything, unlike trump and bolton, but relieving sanctions before any concessions have been made seemed weak and pathetic, as does re-applying "wax" after the recent failure? trump's "pandering" has proven to be ineffective.

 

Evidently, you think a "pathetic" strategy is better than anything else? Do tell.

 

 

[lannarebirth]

Quote

Evidently, you think a "pathetic" strategy is better than anything else? Do tell.

 

I think the US is the stronger party and that it should maintain strong sanctions until verifiable progress is made. It should then maintain other lesser sanctions until still more progress is made. I would include sanctioning third party countries such as China and Russia if they are complicit in NK's breaking of sanctions. Then, we should switch to the carrot rather than the stick and give such aid as is required to bring NK into the fold of lawful (mostly) nations. I don't claim any of that will work, but it it is in my view a better strategy than watching them become ever more powerful and belligerant, while doing nothing to prevent it, as we witnessed these past few administrations.

[mtls2005]

8 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I don't claim any of that will work

 

Thank you for this brief bit of honesty which addresses a massively complex issue, one which cannot be resolved by simply flying into Singapore or Hanoi for a handshake and photo-op.

 

Bravo.

 

 

10 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I think the US is the stronger party and that it should maintain strong sanctions until verifiable progress is made. It should then maintain other lesser sanctions until still more progress is made. I would include sanctioning third party countries such as China and Russia if they are complicit in NK's breaking of sanctions. Then, we should switch to the carrot rather than the stick

 

Ah yes, Parenting 101..."you're grounded, until blah, blah, blah".

 

Limited success with this simplistic approach personally, but as I said, I'm not an expert in anything.

[Tug]

I agree shut them down we tryed nice now total imbargo and let the n Koreans know we will back them up if they take little Kim out de nuclearise then they can join the world,I know China won’t like it so what!

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

Limited success with this simplistic approach personally, but as I said, I'm not an expert in anything.

 

Clearly.  Like almost everyone else on this board (of whatever political stripe) one knows what you are going to say before even clicking on the post. Just once I'd like to be surprised by a poster who doesn't limit themselves to a view that someone else prepared for them to spout.

[spidermike007]

Kind of typical of Bolton, and Trump and Pompeo to expect Kim to denuclearize. It was never going to happen. The most they could have hoped for was to slow down their program, and get agreements on testing. After spending a decade, and tens of billions of dollars, only the most naive, dogmatic, small minded, and least talented, would even consider the prospect of them letting their nukes go. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

The art of the deal. 

[zydeco]

2 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

I would include sanctioning third party countries such as China and Russia if they are complicit in NK's breaking of sanctions.

And this is the key. Hammer China, and especially China, hard. Trade embargo.

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, zydeco said:

And this is the key. Hammer China, and especially China, hard. Trade embargo.

 

It's coming at some point, Trump notwithstanding. Better at a time of our choosing than theirs.

[sammieuk1]

Looks like Guam or the east cost will be gone then!  things were going so well last week????

[zydeco]

17 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

Looks like Guam or the east cost will be gone then!  things were going so well last week????

The point needs to be made clear to North Korea's sponsors, China and Russia, that any attack on the US from North Korea will also be considered an attack by China and Russia and result in full retaliatory measures against both. This used to be the case during the Cold War, but I imagine that like much else since George H.W. Bush this policy has lapsed.

[Roadman]

18 minutes ago, zydeco said:

The point needs to be made clear to North Korea's sponsors, China and Russia, that any attack on the US from North Korea will also be considered an attack by China and Russia and result in full retaliatory measures against both. This used to be the case during the Cold War, but I imagine that like much else since George H.W. Bush this policy has lapsed.

Do you in all honesty believe Kim is going to attack the US? Seriously? Kim may be another knuckle dragger in the image of a Trump but he’s not that thick. The threats and tests to date have been tit for tat with Trumps big mouth threats the same as the launch base now being reconstructed is. Rather than Trump threatening everybody perhaps some actual diplomacy like accepting North Korea has nuclear weapons the same as other less than desirables have like Pakistan and India, and some would venture Israel, and look at South Korea and China improving relations with them to bring them into the world fold rather than isolating them into a threatened position. What is damn obvious is all the threats and actions to date have done nothing to stop Kim developing his arsenal so I guess the US in its intelligence will keep on down the path of proving Einstein with his (possibly) definition of insanity. 

[lannarebirth]

The thing about partisanship is,  all of recorded history is never any longer than the beginning of the opponent's term and it could be as recent as last week. 

[zydeco]

30 minutes ago, Roadman said:

nd look at South Korea and China improving relations with them to bring them into the world

North Korea is a puppet state of China. What is going on in North Korea is actually China pulling the strings. North Korea itself is irrelevant. It's all about China.

[kamahele]

How about reinstating annual military maneuvers in South Korea instead... 

[jvs]

Oh come on guys,all this negativity,no need for that!!

Do you really think a few missiles will mess up a close friendship?

No way,Donald Trump is a master negotiator and he will make a few calls.

(sarcasm emoji)

 

[seahorse]

The US should threaten to send Trump over every week until they denuclearize. Shouldn't take long. Simples. 

[scorecard]

8 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

What a pathetic strategy.

 

trump is like Mr. Miyagi: "sanctions on, sanctions off", without the teaching effect.

 

 

 

Pathetic strategy from trump or bolton. IMHO bolton always looking for any opportunity, and scenario to go for the throat, loves to try to be the tough guy.

 

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Clearly.  Like almost everyone else on this board (of whatever political stripe) one knows what you are going to say before even clicking on the post. Just once I'd like to be surprised by a poster who doesn't limit themselves to a view that someone else prepared for them to spout.

 

I expected you to say as  much.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, zydeco said:

The point needs to be made clear to North Korea's sponsors, China and Russia, that any attack on the US from North Korea will also be considered an attack by China and Russia and result in full retaliatory measures against both. This used to be the case during the Cold War, but I imagine that like much else since George H.W. Bush this policy has lapsed.

 

This used to be the case, how? Which country (apart from China and the USSR), posed such a threat during the Cold War?

[CGW]

8 hours ago, keith101 said:

With news coming from South Korea that the testing site is being rebuilt you had better start ramping up the sanctions because he will never denuclearise its whats keeping him in power .

Given the USA recent history & warmongering, if I was him I would be keeping my nucs ???? 

[IAMHERE]

Heck, I thought there was nothing left to embargo. What is left to stop trading with North Korea? Doesn't much matter, Kim isn't gonna hurt, he'll get what ever he wants.

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, zydeco said:

And this is the key. Hammer China, and especially China, hard. Trade embargo.

Trade embargo China and you'll hammer the US economy.

There's a reason that China exports 4 times its trade value to the US compared to China imports from the US - a substantial part of the US economy is built around those imports. Cease imports and you terminate US businesses.

Trump has already engaged China in a trade war and the US has yet to emerge with an agreement that was due March 1st.

[ravip]

Now who has the right to have Nuclear power and who does not? How is this right given and by whom? Never seen these rules written anywhere. Is it just a selected few who has the right to destroy this world?

[billd766]

8 hours ago, zydeco said:

The point needs to be made clear to North Korea's sponsors, China and Russia, that any attack on the US from North Korea will also be considered an attack by China and Russia and result in full retaliatory measures against both. This used to be the case during the Cold War, but I imagine that like much else since George H.W. Bush this policy has lapsed.

Does that apply equally if the USA attacks N Korea?