'Sometimes You Have To Walk' - Trump/Kim Summit A Failure? Whose Fault?
The media is gloating today over the "failed" Trump/Kim summit. Was the summit really a failure? If so, who is at fault? The media and pundits as usual get it wrong. It was both a success and a failure, but not for the reasons they are reporting. Tune in to today's Liberty Report for our reasoning...
The media is gloating today over the "failed" Trump/Kim summit. Was the summit really a failure? If so, who is at fault? The media and pundits as usual get it wrong. It was both a success and a failure, but not for the reasons they are reporting. Tune in to today's Liberty Report for our reasoning...
The media is gloating today over the "failed" Trump/Kim summit. Was the summit really a failure? If so, who is at fault? The media and pundits as usual get it wrong. It was both a success and a failure, but not for the reasons they are reporting. Tune in to today's Liberty Report for our reasoning...
Hello everybody and thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
Obviously today we're broadcasting slightly differently because we do not have the technology in the studio to go with our visuals.
But we will do this by audio and we want to talk some more about what's happening in Korea or what didn't happen in the summit with Trump and UN.
But yesterday we did talk about this.
We were very hopeful.
But today's the morning news today is saying that there's a lot of problems there because Trump failed and the summit fell apart.
And we want to figure out how we can say something positive and yet be as upfront as possible.
And I think that overall the fact that Trump is talking to North Korea is good.
I think that we have to be questionable on just why these things are happening the way they are because it just doesn't all add up because in one sense we have this intent and a movement toward an opening up with North Korea and a move toward peace.
At the same time all the advisors to Trump are pretty much involved with warmongering and those are the neocons.
So I guess in one sense we should be pleased that at least there's an effort, but also be realistic in saying how can it happen that we really make progress if we have the advisors beating the drums for war.
But there's a lot of things that we can talk about about whose fault this is and what could have been done because several people have been involved.
But Daniel, I'm sure you have a few comments to make on what you might think what happened to these discussions with UN and Trump.
Yeah, you know, the media, as you say, Dr. Paul, does want to say it's a big failure.
It's a big failure.
But, you know, the expectations, I think, were unrealistic, and I think they were purposefully unrealistic because everyone seemed to want to give Trump a black eye over this.
Nobody wanted to welcome the possibility of this 70-year war ending.
And I think it's remarkable how there was so much in unison of rejection of what Trump was doing.
I think actually Justin Ramondo made a good point in his column today, which is which president of our recent presidents would have had the courage to think outside the box and go over there and sit down and have dinner and have a talk with him.
You know, there was so much inertia in our foreign policy toward North Korea.
There was the same old carrots and the same old sticks.
So I think it's really a mixed bag, and that may be unsatisfying, but I think it's a good point.
He was bold.
He did a bold thing.
He took a risk.
And that in itself is not such a bad thing.
Right.
You know, I have a few thoughts on what could have been done differently.
Obviously, we would have a different view exactly how to run some discussions like this.
But my first question to myself and for you, Daniel, to comment on is why is it that the real discussions couldn't have been a follow-up with the discussions between North and South Korea that occurred last September, which were with Moon, which was, I thought, very, very productive.
And the key players are North Korea and South Korea.
It's their country.
Do they want to get together?
And from our viewpoint, there's certainly signs that they do.
But then we have to immediately deal with the international community.
We have our interests and our claims to being the policemen of the world.
And China, of course, is next door, and they have a lot to say about this, and they were involved in the war.
So it seems like the real discussions should have been with North and South Korea.
Hopefully they will continue.
But I think quietly, the United States and China, you know, their diplomats ought to be just talking a little bit, you know, and saying, you know, what are we going to give here and what are we going to do there?
Can we deal with sanctions and different things?
But my idea would be to get them to emphasize the people who are most important.
That is the people of North and South Korea and have them have their leaders do more of the discussion than what went on this past weekend.
Yeah, I think that's a good point.
And some people have questioned why China and South Korea and Russia as well were not involved.
And some people speculated that this wasn't really meant to have a super concrete conclusion because any move by North Korea to give up its nuclear program would have required China and Russia to provide some security guarantees.
And them not being involved suggested that there wasn't really a big breakthrough on the table.
But the North and South engagement continues.
And I was just reading a piece on Zero Heads, Dr. Paul.
You probably read it as well.
That South Korea is planning, I think, on Friday to have a ceremony, the 100th anniversary of the Korean uprising against Japanese colonial rule.
It'll be a North-South Korea event.
They'll probably make some announcements of more economic cooperation.
So I think that process continues, and I think it will continue regardless.
You know, it's eventually the people that will make the decision.
And I think in a way they're speaking out because there is more communications now between North and South.
And there was an article written recently, somebody who had, you know, been exposed to what's happening over there.
They say North Korea is changing.
If you just think about the pictures that we see now, they're not as drab as they used to be.
I'd like to see somebody make a picture of North Korea at night and see if they have any more lights.
You know, that would be a good picture.
But anyway, this article made a good case for it, and they for the two sides talking.
And the North and South are talking about actually in the distant future, not next year or so, but working together to get the Olympics to come there for them with the assumption that they do it together.
So that's back to my argument that sometimes sports are very beneficial in bringing people together.
So there are some changes going on.
But the biggest hang-up, though, has been the nukes.
I think that is what Trump finally said, well, he wouldn't give up his nuke.
Everybody knew he wasn't going to.
But, you know, this is probably heresy for anybody listening in Washington, D.C. or the neocon.
But why is that the ultimate litmus test?
Why don't we use that same argument against Pakistan and India and a few other places where they have nukes?
Why are we so tolerant?
But ultimately, though, the weapons are secondary to how people get along.
So if two friends have nuclear weapons, it doesn't matter.
So if you become friendly with a country like this, whether or not they've still retained something that they think can ultimately protect against the whims of the West, that probably shouldn't be the last litmus test on whether or not we should continue just to talk with North Korea.
And you would have thought, I mean, it seems like, you know, Trump's idea that it's all or nothing, that was probably a poison pill in the negotiations because, you know, Trump said, you know, you have to commit to full denuclearization.
Looking to Trade, Not Fight00:07:58
And they were going to define that term at the summit.
You have to commit to this before any sanctions relief.
And Kim came and said, you've got to give us sanctions relief before we do any partial denuclearization.
So it seems like if they didn't want to walk away looking like a failure, they could have agreed on something a couple of steps down, maybe even just opening relations, opening formal diplomatic relations.
Then they could have signed something, had a big smile, a lot of cameras, and it would have been hard to knock him back at home for something like that.
So I don't get that part really.
Yeah, you know, and I think the sanctions are more a show than anything because we don't even trade with them.
They get all their stuff that they need from China, and they are improving economically.
So this is just sort of puffing themselves up to see who's going to hold out.
But I think, you know, I don't think, of course, from my viewpoint, we should have never put sanctions on them.
Why do it?
That just punishes the people.
And then they become more antagonistic toward us.
But this whole idea that, oh, we can't give up any sanctions at all, I think that's not a good policy.
I think we should get rid of the sanctions.
That doesn't mean you sell them weapons.
It means that you can sell them some goods and services.
But I just think this whole contest of the trade war, which we're pursuing with China, that doesn't help things either.
It's part of that sanction business, all this interference.
And a lot of that stuff could be cleaned up if we lack more within our Constitution that a president shouldn't have the power and authority to wield arbitrary sanctions on anybody he doesn't like and we'll do it this.
I mean, that assumption has to be so far removed from what was intended in the Constitution.
But I think trade wars aren't helpful.
I think sanctions aren't helpful.
So if we're truly looking for a piece of value, I think our attitude has to be changed there.
That's a great point.
Our attitude needs to change.
And there's sort of a Cold War hangover where it seems like Americans continue having this binary view of the world.
You know, it's as really well encompassed in George W. Bush's statement, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists.
You know, the idea that Kim has to be our best friend or our worst enemy.
And if we really wanted to make some changes in North Korea, and we've said this over and over, Dr. Paul, we sound like a broken record, but allow American businesses to engage, allow their standard of living to raise through trade and to understand that a better life is possible.
And I think you would see a loosening of the government's hold on the people.
It seems like we want to keep that hold on them so we can either turn you into our best friend or keep you as a worst enemy.
You know, I have a chance to make my point once again about Vietnam and how well they have done since we left.
But Trump made a statement something like, if North Korea would only do what we want them to do, they would thrive like Vietnam, which probably has a point.
He probably has a point there, but I'd like us to treat North Korea and Korea like we treated Vietnam.
We had nothing to do with the unification of Vietnam.
They were totally communistic.
We said that they would just continue to go into the Soviet orbit.
The Soviet system is gone.
And yet we didn't have anything to do with it.
We walked away.
So I would say that, yes, I agree with Trump that They could thrive like Vietnam if we treated them more like Vietnam.
You know, we didn't win the war in Korea, and they're still divided because we want them to be divided.
And this is the opportune time to change our policy and let them thrive like Vietnam.
It's funny because when I read that line, I thought of you and laughed.
I was wondering if maybe Trump is watching the show and we're listening to what you say about Vietnam.
But I think, you know, you can say it's a big failure, but I think a few things came out of it that are very positive.
And as I say earlier, something that we haven't heard in the past several administrations.
First of all, they seem to develop a friendship.
It's almost like a big brother, little brother kind of thing.
Trump said Kim's quite a guy.
He's a real character, you know, which is kind of interesting.
I think that makes it a little less likely that he's going to bomb him, which is good.
The other thing is that if we keep this thing in place where there's going to be no nuclear tests on North Korea's part, and the U.S. has agreed to no large-scale war games in South Korea.
So that's a very positive thing in and of itself.
No doubt about it.
And those things we should cheer on.
And, of course, I want to get to our position as quickly as possible.
But I also work with the assumption that if you don't state what you think is the most perfect position that you can think of, you don't even know where you're going.
So yes, I might be overly optimistic of setting these goals.
But I think it's sort of like the far left.
They set their goals for having utopia come from communism and they never reach it.
Well, I happen to think the best system is, you know, the free trade and free markets and sound money.
That's why, you know, Moon speaking with the North Koreans is so important.
This travel back and forth and trading back and forth, just in Korea, I think is so important.
And that's why we have to urge our government to say that, you know, people who trade with each other don't fight.
And this whole idea that we're going to hold out until we can inspect every inch of territory in Korea and make sure they don't have anything going on, I just don't think that's going to help move us.
But you make some very good points that you better be happy with what has happened so far, and we should be.
But I think also we have to make the case for why it's not dangerous to anybody.
And this is what the neocons would have done, you know, if Trump would have what they would call and sell out to North Korea and remove all the sanctions and do all these things.
And they would say, well, now you've really wrecked things.
You've caused so much trouble.
And now there's going to be war.
And of course, that's exactly the opposite of what trade and travel would do.
Absolutely.
I think if we're about ready to close out, Dr. Paul, I would just pour a little cold water because I've been mostly positive.
But I think here's what, if you want to say that the summit was a failure, and I think you can make that argument to a degree, I would say the reason it's a failure is that, you know, Kim is no dummy.
He's looking around at Libya.
He's looking around at the Iran deal.
And he's looking around just recently at the U.S.'s Venezuela policy.
And if anyone were in his shoes and being asked to give up their deterrent when you look at the U.S.'s continuing interventionist foreign policy and you think about who Trump's successor may maybe Trump is not going to do it.
You think about who his successor is going to be, Pence, Haley, Biden.
You know, he'd be crazy, too.
So we're actually, again, a victim of our own interventionist foreign policy.
There's no doubt about that.
And that, of course, is a theme that we have on our program all the time that the interventionists aren't the best things for us or for the whole world.
But you know, I've mentioned already today about the good proposal that North and South Korea will get together and plan for Olympics, but it's very far distant.
Causing Problems Through Shooting00:00:38
But I would like to see a little bit of that right now.
You know, North and South getting together, I don't know what sport is their favorite sport, but they ought to put a team together and challenge some people because except for the rare exceptions, most of the time good, solid sporting events are a good way for people to come together.
But anyway, that's just a little dream of mine because I like to see them playing sports a lot more than shooting at each other and accusing them of all kinds of things that are causing the problem.
But anyway, I want to thank our audience for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.