Tillerson’s visit – let’s clear up a few points of confusion Tillerson’s visit – let’s clear up a few points of confusion

[webfact]

OPINION

Tillerson’s visit – let’s clear up a few points of confusion 

By Suthichai Yoon 
The Nation

 

BANGKOK: -- US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to Thailand early next week should provide a good opportunity to ask some basic questions about President Donald Trump’s policies towards Thailand and the rest of Asean – and whether the White House and State Department have come to a coherent set of policies on major issues related to this region. 
 

Tillerson should have some understanding about Thailand. According to his official biography in 1995, he was made president of Esso Exploration and Production Khorat Inc before he was promoted to the CEO of ExxonMobil in 2006, the post he vacated six months ago to become Trump’s chief foreign policy officer. 

 

Apart from discussing Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s upcoming visit to the White House, Tillerson should provide clarification on where Washington stands today on such important issues such as: 

 

If the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is out, what is in? Where, for example, does he stand on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)? 

 

If Obama’s ”pivot to Asia” policy is no more, what will be the US’s new security stance in this part of the world? 

 

What exactly is Washington’s position on “North Korea: Peaceful pressure” (A new term from Tillerson) or “The time for talk is over” (as stated by the US Ambassador to the UN)? 

 

Tillerson said on Tuesday that Washington was not seeking regime change in North Korea and would be open to dialogue, a stance seemingly at odds with President Trump and administration officials. 

 

In a news conference marking six months since his swearing-in, he declared that the US was not aiming to topple North Korean leader Kim Jong-un or looking for “an excuse to send our military north of the 38th parallel”. 

 

“We do not seek regime change; we do not seek the collapse of the regime; we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula; we do not seek an excuse to send our military north of the 38th parallel,” Tillerson said. “And we’re trying to convey to the North Koreans we are not your enemy, we are not your threat – but you are presenting an unacceptable threat to us, and we have to respond.” 

 

Tillerson said the breakneck pace of the North’s missile and nuclear weapons programmes was one of the Trump administration’s most urgent foreign policy issues, noting that it was the first issue the White House had confronted. 

 

But Trump has pinned much of his strategy for halting Pyongyang’s advances on China pressuring the Kim regime. 

 

In one of his recent tweets, Trump threw diplomatic manners into the air and declared that he was “disappointed” with China – suggesting that there had been only talk and no action from Beijing. 

 

While Tillerson was talking about having “a dialogue” with North Korea, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said that Trump had told him war between the US and North Korea over the rogue nation’s missile programme was imminent if Pyongyang continued to aim its long-range missiles at America. 

 

“He has told me that. I believe him,” Graham said on NBC’s “Today” programme. “If I were China, I would believe him, too, and do something about it.” 

 

While Tillerson agreed there was no attempt at regime change in North Korea, senior officials in the Trump administration, including CIA chief Mike Pompeo, have hinted that Washington was open to the possibility of regime change. 

 

Tillerson reiterated this stance on Tuesday, saying the US would continue its campaign of “peaceful pressure”. 

 

“We felt the appropriate thing to do first was to seek peaceful pressure on the regime … to have them develop a willingness to sit and talk with us and others, but with an understanding that a condition of those talks is there is no future in which North Korea holds nuclear weapons or the ability to deliver those nuclear weapons to anyone in the region, much less to the homeland,” he said. 

 

On trade and investment, it would be very interesting to find out just where Tillerson stands on free trade and trade protectionism. 

In 2013, as the top executive of ExxonMobil, he threw his support behind the proposed TPP by telling the Global Security Forum: 

 

“One of the most promising developments on this front is the ongoing effort for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The 11 nations that have been working to lower trade barriers and end protectionist policies under this partnership are a diverse mix of developed and developing economies. But all of them understand the value of open markets to growth and progress for every nation.” 

 

Has he changed his mind on that – and what role does free trade in the Trump administration’s election pledge to “Make America Great Again”? 

 

Tillerson has said “America First is not America alone.” 

 

How can we help to make America great again while we don’t get trampled in the process?

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/opinion/30322740

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2017-08-04

[Thailand]

No doubt coming to sell some unwanted outdated weaponry to a proven buyer.

[JAG]

Thailand's"role" in dealing with North Korea?

Possibly a vaguely usefully runway, but then there are plenty of them dotted around South East Asia...

[Jingthing]

 A silly exercise. Tillerson isn't president. trump says one thing today, and a totally different thing tomorrow. Adults like Tillerson try in vain to project some sanity out of Washington but as long as trump remains president, there is only insanity. 

Tillerson being pro TPP is irrelevant. trump nixed it to promote his image brand of being an American isololationist. Tillerson seems to be a decent intelligent grounded in reality man but he works for a fickle, mad ego-maniacal baby man that  thinks he's emperor. So good luck. 

Edited August 3, 2017 by Jingthing

[Lupatria]

4 hours ago, webfact said:

let’s clear up a few points of confusion 

With his Thai counterparts? That may take a lifetime...

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, JAG said:

Thailand's"role" in dealing with North Korea?

Possibly a vaguely usefully runway, but then there are plenty of them dotted around South East Asia...

 

Should things unfortunately kick-off then the useful role of R&R center, previously enjoyed, would be very handy.

 

All these clamp downs might be causing concern 555 !

[Rancid]

Does it really matter what Trumps view of anything is? He has already been neutered by the establishment/war machine/neocon media, he doesn't have much say in anything, I believe the term is a lame duck president. Mind you I suppose there are always the tweets...

[Gandtee]

Will he discuss  the USA"s attitude towards Thailand's military Government and the lack of a democratically elected government? 

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, Thailand said:

No doubt coming to sell some unwanted outdated weaponry to a proven buyer.

Actually, Thailand is getting their weapons from Russia.  And China.  Definitely outdated! LOL  With easy ability to pocket cash here and there. LOL

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/02/21/asia-pacific/u-s-restrictions-on-arms-sales-means-thai-military-needs-to-shop-elsewhere/#.WYQA9lExVhE

Most attention has been focused on Thailand’s warming ties with China, including talks on a massive rail project and the possible purchase of $1 billion worth of Chinese-made submarines.

 

“If Thailand selects Russian tanks, more than welcome, more than welcome.”

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, Rancid said:

I believe the term is a lame duck president.

I think he's more like the "blame" duck president.

All his failures are someone else's fault.

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Actually, Thailand is getting their weapons from Russia.  And China.  Definitely outdated! LOL  With easy ability to pocket cash here and there. LOL

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/02/21/asia-pacific/u-s-restrictions-on-arms-sales-means-thai-military-needs-to-shop-elsewhere/#.WYQA9lExVhE

Most attention has been focused on Thailand’s warming ties with China, including talks on a massive rail project and the possible purchase of $1 billion worth of Chinese-made submarines.

 

“If Thailand selects Russian tanks, more than welcome, more than welcome.”

 

U.S. plans to sell Black Hawk helicopters to Thailand

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-thailand-idUSKBN19K193

 

Also standing maintenance, parts and munitions deals. At least some are still on (or rather, were never off). Granted, not a whole lot compared with reported planned deals with the PRC, South Korea etc.

[craigt3365]

Just now, Morch said:

 

U.S. plans to sell Black Hawk helicopters to Thailand

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-thailand-idUSKBN19K193

 

Also standing maintenance, parts and munitions deals. At least some are still on (or rather, were never off). Granted, not a whole lot compared with reported planned deals with the PRC, South Korea etc.

Very interesting.  I do believe, under Obama, these orders were not approved.  Interesting to see if congress approves this or not.

[dcnx]

6 hours ago, JAG said:

Thailand's"role" in dealing with North Korea?

Possibly a vaguely usefully runway, but then there are plenty of them dotted around South East Asia...

And South Korea, which is a wee bit closer to North Korea.

[craigt3365]

6 hours ago, JAG said:

Thailand's"role" in dealing with North Korea?

Possibly a vaguely usefully runway, but then there are plenty of them dotted around South East Asia...

One big issue is Thailand's role in defectors.  I guess quite a few transit through Thailand.  I remember watching a documentary about this last year.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Very interesting.  I do believe, under Obama, these orders were not approved.  Interesting to see if congress approves this or not.

 

I think some standing contracts weren't even stopped at all - maintenance and parts, for example. Munitions, maybe different story. Other military/security related programs were not fully cancelled as well - training, demining, counter-terrorism and intelligence cooperation. Clandestine operations aside, arms deals approval is a lengthy process in the US (as in most Western countries), can take months or even years to finalize. Then there's the deal itself, which is another matter. Both processes may be slowed down or hastened in connection with political circumstances. A good example would be "Trump's" arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

 

[craigt3365]

Just now, Morch said:

A good example would be "Trump's" arms deal with Saudi Arabia.

 

Wasn't that Kushner's deal?

 

Terrible thing to sell weapons to SA.  But, that's another topic.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Wasn't that Kushner's deal?

 

Terrible thing to sell weapons to SA.  But, that's another topic.

 

No, it wasn't. And not "discussing" it - just an example of how long US arms deals take to be approved (look up when that one was conceived and under which administration), and the differences between headlines and what deals amounts to de facto.

[Thaidream]

The US military needs the support of Thailand in the event they go to war with North Korea. They want access to Thai bases so they can park fighter aircraft; maintenance and refueling teams and possibly large numbers of troops that would be rotated in and out of Korea.  Thailand has always granted this permission and I believe they would do it again but not without a price.  Thailand will want a quid pro quo in access to US markets and a Trump vow not to interfere in Thailand's internal affairs which Trump will give.

 

Thailand wants to swing back to the West and make sure neither China or Russia gain too much support.

[craigt3365]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, it wasn't. And not "discussing" it - just an example of how long US arms deals take to be approved (look up when that one was conceived and under which administration), and the differences between headlines and what deals amounts to de facto.

But he did call Lockheed Martin CEO to get a price cut!  Too funny.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/jared-kushner-saudi-arms-deal-lockheed-martin/index.html

Quote

Trump signs Kushner-negotiated $100B Saudi arms deal

 

The deal was finalized in part thanks to the direct involvement of Jared Kushner, the President's son-in-law and senior adviser. He shocked a high-level Saudi delegation earlier this month when he personally called Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson and asked if she would cut the price of a sophisticated missile detection system, according to a source with knowledge of the call.

I use to sell software to the US government and various contractors.  Horrible procurement process and the contracts were a nightmare.  Especially for classified stuff.   But part of that job was quite fun!  Saw some really neat stuff.

[Jimbo in Thailand]

"Tillerson said on Tuesday that Washington was not seeking regime change in North Korea"

 

Hmmm... so maybe seeking regime change in a formerly democratic kingdom currently being forcefully dragged into the abyss of a permanent military-run dictatorship?

[maewang99]

wow, that's a lot to read.  let's look at what they are doing instead. 

making the dollah weaker. jobs jobs jobs. for the base.

and if they pin Congress with the Debt Limit... we ain't seen nothing yet.





 

 

Edited August 4, 2017 by maewang99