Zeff wrote: Nick wrote:
Zeff wrote:Nick: "..it seems [Trump] has had rather more success than anyone expected."
What "success" has he "had"?
.... But for whatever reason, it seems things are different in North Korea. Of course, there may be other reasons for it (I can think of several), but why has it happened now? Trump is too big a factor (in either direction) not to need to be accounted for.
And, in other areas, I think the repatriation of capital to America is important, as well as the forcing of China to move nearer to its WTO obligations.
As I say, not complete, the jury's still out, or perhaps more accurately, not all the evidence has been presented yet, but still, not (yet?) the disaster predicted. Hmmm....
The reason cannot be foolish tweets.
Why not? I too am horrified my most of what Trump does, but maybe it is this very "foolishness which has changed the paradigm. Akin to throwing all the cards in the air.
More likely, it was the visit Kim made (by train) to China,
Why has China's attitude changed, though? Could it be the belligerence of Trump? China is moving towards being fairer in its international trading, and more exasperated with its loony dictator neighbour. Though Trump's "rocket man" japes are alarming, he would be sickeningly self-satisfied to complete a fabulous deal to solve the North Korean problem. I also wonder is Kim thinks it wise and advantageous to try to improve the state of his nation. He's live in Switzerland, I believe. Maybe he liked what he saw...?
Hmmm... "Seen to have". If I were N.Korean, I wouldn't want to rely on it for defence! It may have allowed Kim to save face, allowed him to move on, but the destruction of all future nuclear weapon development doesn't support the thesis IMO that Kim has joined the top table. I'd like to have been a (tri-lingual) fly-on-the-wall at Kim's meeting in China. That seems the most likely reason for the change....
Ex-Pres Obama said that N Korea would be a top priority for the incoming President and there was hope that international cooperation (impossible under a buffoon) would stop them getting it.
So where do Obama's "international co-operation" get to in stopping the nuclear aspiration of NK? Nowhere. Buffoon? Maybe, but maybe it is that buffoonery which has changed the best options for China and NK.
It still isn't clear that the delivery system is in place, but the NK regime does seem secure now. So no Trump achievement observable there to me.
Hmmm... I don't see any "security" for NK. it remains a disaster waiting to happen. Totally reliant on China. Admittedly "achievement" implies some reasoned progression, which I don't see much of either, (!) but maybe we could use the word " result" instead.
From what I have read, mainly in the Economist Magazine, far from "forcing China" he has done the opposite. By opting out of TPP and leaving so many diplomatic posts unfilled he has left the W Democracies of Japan, SKorea, Australia and NZ to try to impose western standards of transparency and rules without US backing and support.
is always worth reading. But to suggest "the opposite of force" doesn't fit at all. Trump has been disruptive, and played good cop, bad cop all on his own!
I agree he seems to have taken some good advice on tax codes (such as state taxes no longer being deductible) and perhaps on some repatriation of capital but even a baffoon like Trump can't get it wrong all the time.
I dunno... Corbyn seems to manage it!
I'm afraid far from being "not complete" Trump's achievements appear to be virtually nil and risk war and disaster.
Certainly the risk is still there, and may get worse. We will see.
As Zakaria pointed out (GPS, CNN) unemployment was already falling and the economy doing well. All Trumps reforms have achieved is overstimulous without commensurately improved infrastructure or other benefits and even greater deficits. So mainly squandering rather than "achievement" there.
Nobody mentions condemning N Koreans to serving Kim's regime indefinitely.
Hmmm... are you now advocating regime change...?
I understand that people see "no choice" between Clinton and Trump, but it is foolish to put a dimwitted egotist in the Oval Office to try to solve anything.
I certainly wouldn't have voted for him! But his feet are (currently, at least,) under the desk in the Oval Office, so that's where we are.
And returning to Brexit, it still looks like a big mistake. Looking at PM May's trips to India and China, now authoritarian Erdogan's visit to London, it looks like we have not "handed control of our democracy" (as Brexiteers insist on seeing it) to the EU, where we had influence and vote, but to anyone willing to give us a trade deal.
We had a vote, but were consistently outvoted and dragged in the wrong direction, so our influence was negated. And we can certainly seee that the EU has made spectacular mistakes as a matter of policy. The EU has so far failed to agree a trade deal with either China or India; I don't see trade deals where before there were none to be a failure.