April 16, 2017

On Korea, what is Trump's history of comments?

Now that North Korea is becoming the next big foreign policy focus, we should see what Trump has said on the matter over the years. Given the Deep State pressure that has led to a reversal on Syria (strikes, regime change), it's possible that they will go contrary to Trump's own true goals for Korea as well.

Here is every tweet he's ever written about Korea. Not much at all, just over 20 tweets before the election, compared to hundreds about Syria.

More shockingly, this is the only thing he said about them during the entire election season, indeed since 2014:


During the VP debate, his team tweeted again that she's weak on Korea.

His only reference to Korea was to talk about a broader pattern of Hillary and co. letting nuclear weapons pile up in hostile countries. Not so much an attack on the country itself, as on "our very stupid leaders" for letting them gain on us.

He fired off a series of tweets around April 2013, when the North had been threatening to shut down the Kaesong industrial park that is run by the North and South, amidst generic saber rattling against the South and the US, who were conducting their annual joint military drills that the North sees as a provocation so close to their border. Trump puts the blame on China, saying they don't eat without China's permission, and they ought to keep their client from insulting and threatening the US so flagrantly.


Nowhere does he discuss them as a serious threat to the American homeland, although he likely saw them as a threat to our tens of thousands of soldiers who are stationed in the South.

And in fact it is South Korea that Trump has always argued is the real threat to American greatness. We provide their national defense for around half of what it actually costs, and they are a major economic competitor, especially for manufacturing. In essence, we are paying for our own de-industrialization, and militarily protecting that off-shoring target to boot! Without Uncle Sam providing their defense, South Korea would not be able to massively subsidize their domestic industries and suck all of those manufacturing jobs out of America.







That's a far harsher tone than he takes with North Korea, for whom he chides China, and whose threat is annoying bluster rather than de-industrializing our economy and costing us a fortune to provide their defense. Why aren't they paying the full costs, plus a 20% mercenary fee? Or how about half of Samsung's profits (currently $7 billion)?

Deep State's goal for the Korean peninsula is to wipe out the North even if it risks destroying the South, just so it can cross off another nation that had eluded incorporation into the American sphere of influence during the Cold War. There is zero of strategic value there. If adding a defeated and worthless NK to the American sphere of influence requires us to hemorrhage money for SK's defense, and thereby also our continued de-industrialization and impoverishment of the American people -- well, it's worth it to the elites whose hyper-competitiveness pushes them to expand at any cost (to others).

And now that we know true-Trump's feelings about what our real priorities are in the Korean peninsula, we will be able to tell if he's able to pursue them or if Deep State continues to advance its agenda. True-Trump's goal is to get US soldiers out of SK, or collect an absolute fortune for us to remain, and to thereby also deal a blow to their industrial competitiveness, now that they'll have to pay for their own defense and less on subsidies to Samsung. Suddenly American manufacturing workers are looking a lot more attractive relative to South Koreans.

If Korean policy unfolds as though they're dusting off a copy of Bush's Axis of Evil speech, then we'll know that Trump still has not gotten enough of his men into key positions in the military and foreign policy machines.

10 comments:

  1. This is another test of "Jacksonian" foreign policy, since Jackson wanted the Navy primarily for defending our commerce abroad:

    "It is your true policy, for your Navy will not only protect your rich and flourishing commerce in distant seas, but will enable you to reach and annoy the enemy and will give to defense its greatest efficiency by meeting danger at a distance from home."

    (Farewell Address)

    The phrase "not only" means that the most fundamental purpose of the Navy was to protect our commerce overseas, and annoying the enemy before they could reach our homeland was icing on the cake.

    And he means "enemy" as someone sailing over here to hit our shores, ports, rivers, etc. Not some ideological enemy, or a nation resisting incorporation into our sphere of influence.

    Our use of the Navy in East Asia is the exact opposite of Jacksonian -- protecting the off-shoring of our manufacturing, and shielding the ships loaded up with containers of Asian goods for import, not American goods for export.

    We control the world's seaways so that the elite stockholders and Wall Street banks can destroy our own manufacturing capacity while strengthening the position of foreign rival industries.

    The Navy in the Asian region has become nothing more than the police force of the cheap labor lobby. Disgraceful.

    If we continue to waste billions using our Navy to defend off-shoring hotbed South Korea, Old Hickory will be spinning in his grave.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're absolutely right that the elite wish to colonize the Middle East. But they probably also want to colonize China, or at least open it up to American immigration. That may be partially why they are going after NK now.

    In "The Next 100 Years", George Friedman explains that the American government wants to divide China up into spheres of influence, allow our corporations to go inside the country in force.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I doubt I could find the documentation, but during the election I read that he believed in the 80s that the superpowers should use ruthless pressure to denuclearize their satellites to prevent proliferation. It may have been in Foreign Policy or on a Realist website. I think somehow Roy Cohn was involved in the story, but my memory fails.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "It is your true policy, for your Navy will not only protect your rich and flourishing commerce in distant seas, but will enable you to reach and annoy the enemy and will give to defense its greatest efficiency by meeting danger at a distance from home."

    (Farewell Address)

    The phrase "not only" means that the most fundamental purpose of the Navy was to protect our commerce overseas, and annoying the enemy before they could reach our homeland was icing on the cake.

    Do we not have vital trade interests in the Pacific that warrants ensuring Korea is under our purview?

    "And he means "enemy" as someone sailing over here to hit our shores, ports, rivers, etc. Not some ideological enemy, or a nation resisting incorporation into our sphere of influence."

    In the context of the times, certainly. But our sphere of influence is assuredly threatened.

    "Our use of the Navy in East Asia is the exact opposite of Jacksonian -- protecting the off-shoring of our manufacturing, and shielding the ships loaded up with containers of Asian goods for import, not American goods for export."

    Our Navy protects our commercial and trade interests. Period. We are not "protecting" China.

    "We control the world's seaways so that the elite stockholders and Wall Street banks can destroy our own manufacturing capacity while strengthening the position of foreign rival industries."

    So, what are you specifically doing to stop these madmen? How are you personally involved in this situation.

    "The Navy in the Asian region has become nothing more than the police force of the cheap labor lobby. Disgraceful."

    Is it not in the interest of capitalist enterprises to look out for their property? To maximize profits and minimize costs? How do you propose to regulate their activity without violating free market principles?

    ReplyDelete
  5. (The PA above is not me, the established commenter whose gone by that handle for years.)

    PA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if that's just a coincidence, but I was just at Steve's and his place is crawling with doom and gloom types, but here's the thing: they've only just become active in the last month. They're either accounts that seemed dead, no comments in years, or they're new. But they only tweet "we should just stop, give up, you/Trump got cucked, etc." They also do the too-mean-for-friendlies insult thing of Steve, and Trump. At the same time, regular trolls who half-heartedly insult Steve, his readers are also showing up.

      Ag surely is aware; just an FYI for everybody.

      Delete
    2. Don't want anyone to become paranoid. These trolls showed up at Steve's shortly after all those alt-right pieces were being written, the only difference now is mostly that they're being strategic rather than emotive. That's fascinating because it shows they've learned something since 2015.

      Are they doing similar to other "influential" haunts like MPC, 4chan, etc.? I don't know, but keep it in the back of your mind that people are afraid of us.

      Delete
  6. Don't worry, we know you're not an ignoramus libertarian traitor who wants our very expensive military to protect the nations who have sucked out our entire manufacturing industries.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This has nothing to do with anything we've been talking about, but that Ossoff guy in Georgia reminds me of Jared Kushner. I like Kushner, btw, and think so much of the palace intrigue-he's the enemy of Trump's people is overblown. I *do* believe in Trump having family who can keep him centered. I *do* like the idea of a Clan running things. No, I've never been the biggest Ivanka fan, but that she's too my left is such a trifling matter that misses the big picture. The trouble of following politics too closely is that we magnify our differences.
    True story: my husband and I moved in very different political/social circles on the internet and we even once got into a bitter argument over this...in real life, one would be *incredibly* hard pressed to tell what the differences between us were. I said to myself, "The political internet is unhealthy. The reality is we are so very, very, VERY similar, but we have managed to find communities so uniquely tailored to us, that we feel far apart.
    I honestly feel that so many of my "bitter" enemies online could be my friends in real life. I mean, I have friends I love so dearly, whom I'd lay down my life for, who dislike Trump. This was the biggest thing that made me feel twitter was bad, psychologically.

    ReplyDelete
  8. *HUGE* today: President Trump is going to take a sledgehammer to H1b in his
    Hire American, Buy American executive order.

    For my household, personally, this is the most consequential day of the Trump presidency.
    I don't know how many people it will affect, but this is a HUGE step in lifting up the working and middle classes. It will probably fly under the radar for the MSM and the pundit class, but *this* is why I, so many of us, made those calls and knocked on those doors.

    ReplyDelete

You MUST enter a nickname with the "Name/URL" option if you're not signed in. We can't follow who is saying what if everyone is "Anonymous."