By Well it appears none of Chickenhead’s recommendations for President Obama’s trip to South Korea came about:
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and U.S. President Barack Obama urged North Korea Thursday to immediately return to nuclear negotiations, vowing joint efforts to fully denuclearize the communist nation under a package deal.
In a joint press conference after their summit, Obama announced that Stephen Bosworth, special U.S. representative for North Korea policy, will visit Pyongyang on Dec. 8 for bilateral talks as part of such efforts.
The leaders agreed to the so-called “grand bargain,” Lee said, which was first proposed by the South Korean president in a bid to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear program in one single step rather than in phases.
“We two leaders completely agreed on the need to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue in one single step as I proposed under a grand bargain, and agreed to discuss how to pursue that goal in close consultations,” Lee said at the joint press conference.
The South Korean president said there was no set timeframe for the denuclearization of the communist North, but that the proposed grand bargain seeks to do so at the earliest date possible. (……….)
The two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to move forward on the bilateral free trade agreement (FTA), signed over two years ago but yet to be ratified. U.S. trade officials have insisted South Korea needs to concede more in the auto sector where the trade balance leans heavily in Seoul’s favor. [Yonhap]
As I expected not a whole lot came out of this visit.
As I said before there is little that the President can do on the FTA due to the labor union’s being part of the Democratic political base.
Stephen Bosworth’s trip to North Korea has long been in the planning process and is nothing new. Both Lee and Obama know the North Koreans are not going to denuclearize for a variety of reasons and the “Grand Bargain” talk is just good politics because it shows that the leaders are trying to provide constructive options for the North Koreans, but they are refusing to take it.
What the North Koreans want is a grand bargain where they need to give little to nothing in return. Past grand bargains such as both Agreed Frameworks did not have good protocols to ensure that the North Koreans were not cheating on the agreement. The Bush administration originally resisted such an agreement, but then gave in to a smoke and mirrors verification protocol in order to get a deal done in order to make it look like they had some kind of foreign policy success. Such a policy was doomed to failure and in due time it did fail.
So far President Obama has resisted the urge to his credit to come up with his own smoke and mirrors verification protocol in order to cut a deal with North Korea in order to get this issue to go away for a while. However, the President is surrounded by people such as Stephen Bosworth who’s past statements clearly indicate he is more then open to the idea of paying off the North Koreans for little to nothing in return.
So all in all a nice 24 hour visit to South Korea, but nothing ground breaking coming out of it.
PS: I wonder if anyone in South Korea tried to get President Obama to wear a hanbok? 
5:09 am on November 19th, 2009 1
You've yet to show us what you really think about the FTA between Korea and US. Why don't you state your position on this instead skirting around this issue by saying:
"there is little that the President can do on the FTA due to the labor union’s being part of the Democratic political base".
If this was Lee Myung Bak fighting with the Democratic Labor Party over the import of US beef, you'd certainly not be on the side lines.
12:00 pm on November 19th, 2009 2
Wonder why Obama even visited South Korea, pretty much nothing of significance has come out of it.
12:52 pm on November 19th, 2009 3
I like how Tom Coyner frames the issue:
The guy I feel the worse about is Lee Myung-bak who went through the mad cow nonsense for no reason.
2:14 pm on November 19th, 2009 4
I really don't care hoots about this FTA thing with the US. As far as I'm concerned, the US influence around the world is waning and their power status has irreversibly degraded.
Whether you like it or not, economy means everything. Money talks. And America doesn't have any. Korea's future is with EU and China whose power is rising all over Asia. Korea doesn't need to beg the US for an FTA with longing puppy eyes.
Even the Financial Times says so:
————————————————————————-
US no longer the only show in town as Obama heads to Seoul
By Christian Oliver and Edward Luce in Seoul, Financial Times
Published: November 18 2009 11:02 | Last updated: November 18 2009 11:02
When George Bush senior visited Seoul as US president 20 years ago, things were simple – the US was the undisputed main ally and trade partner. Astonishingly, there was only one weekly flight from South Korea to China, the communist foe.
Barack Obama on Wednesday visits a South Korea where the US is no longer the only show in town. China is now the main trade partner, with 642 flights each week. While the US is still the chief political ally, Mr Obama’s cheery soundbites on Korean issues are not convincing Seoul that Washington is dedicating enough thought to the peninsula.
On the military front, ties remain robust, with the US committed to its South Korean presence. But vital issues such as a trade agreement and North Korea’s atom bombs have been sidelined in the US, while China plays a greater role in both Koreas.
“The long-term idea is that Seoul will ultimately drift more towards Beijing’s orbit, although less so under (South Korean) President Lee Myung-bak,” said Andrew Gilholm, senior analyst at Control Risks, the security consultancy.
Diplomacy with nuclear-armed North Korea, which this year blasted a missile over Japan and detonated an atomic warhead, currently hinges on the success of bilateral talks between Kim Jong-il and the US. Washington plans to send an envoy to Pyongyang later this year but diplomats in Seoul say they are unconvinced that Mr Obama’s choice, Stephen Bosworth, is the right man for the job. He is a part-time diplomat, keeping a university teaching job in the US.
“He does not have leverage or political decision-making authority so the bilateral talks are most likely to end up with the countries just stating their own positions,” said Choi Choon-heum, researcher at the Korea Institute for National Unification. “If the Obama administration wanted a significant result, he would have chosen a different figure.”
By contrast, China has intervened at a far deeper level, sending its premier, Wen Jiabao, in October.
Mr Obama has had to join a chorus of US officials reassuring South Korea of the nuclear umbrella. This need for repetition is significant because even traditionally pro-American conservative lawmakers in Seoul are now criticising the US for limiting South Korean ballistic missiles. They are demanding Seoul be allowed its own long-range missiles, a step the US fears could spark a regional arms race.
On bilateral economic relations, things are not looking rosy. The two nations signed a landmark trade accord to cut tariffs in 2007 but neither party has ratified it. Despite calling the deal “badly flawed” and unfair to US carmakers, Mr Obama is now trying to sound upbeat, saying he would work with his “South Korean friends” to move forward on the deal.
But Mr Obama’s vague pledge met with instant resistance from members of his own party on Capitol Hill, whose consent would be vital for the deal to take effect.
“There have to be major changes,” Sander Levin, the Democratic chairman of the House sub-committee on trade, said this week.
“They (the South Koreans) say the agreement is the agreement and they are not willing to change it. That is not acceptable.”
While commercial ties with Beijing are booming, politics are rockier. South Korea is a vigorous democracy with historical suspicions of the regional superpower. Mr Lee has faced frustrations trying to open inside channels with Beijing and this month appointed a close personal adviser to the post of ambassador.
While not wanting to send frontline troops to Afghanistan, Mr Lee has pleased Washington by saying he may send up to 300 soldiers to guard development and aid work. The decision faces opposition.
As South Korea prepares to head the Group of 20 leading economies next year, Mo Jong-ryn, politics professor at Yonsei university, said Seoul was in a “tricky position” needing to find middle ground between the US and China, bridging the developed and developing world.
“It may want to raise a voice against the US, which would be very unusual, but certainly won’t support China against the US. It will be interesting to see how far Korea can go towards the neutral position,” he said, but added that several of Seoul’s G20 officials had US academic backgrounds that could tip the balance in Washington’s favour.
Ben Rhodes, a senior national security advisor to Mr Obama, said the US would not allow its own expanding relationship with China to overshadow old allies.
“We avoid the term G2 in the most part because we don’t want to de-emphasise our critically important relationships with our treaty allies, including Japan and South Korea.”
5:26 pm on November 19th, 2009 5
I'll check back with you Tommy in 4 years. If american is still around. It'll be fun I'm sure.
12:44 am on November 20th, 2009 6
Thanks Tom! It's responses like yours that I photocopy and show non-koreans to show them how koreans think about America and other countries in general…along with that cartoon of a korean girl being chased by SE Asain men with a knife that was printed in your newspapers.
Tom, America has done more in 100 years than korea, or any other Asian country for that matter, has done in it's pathetic 3000 year history.
Korea has gone about as far as it will go.
Korea: From 10th to 13th, that's my motto for korea.
You'll find Tom that the world doesn't need South Korea, especially when more and more koreans are thinking like you.
The US should begin to pull it's forces out of korea and then forget about korea and focus more on trade with China, India, Vietnam and other emerging economies.
Todays koreans are not much more than spoiled, ungrateful brats who don't deserve to have friends like the US or any other nation. Tom is proof of this.
In the end, if korea were to suddenly disappear, which would be fine with me, the world wouldn't be affected too much, a little, but not much.
No country should have an FTA with korea.
Lone Star is a perfect example of why no one should do business with or in korea.
4:59 am on November 20th, 2009 7
JohnT, US owes China $1 trillion dollars, and Korea $280 billion. Pay up or shut up. You as an American are in no position to tell anyone what is and what isn't. Your currency is paper money, soon to be worthless. I'll wait until the day China takes over your institutions on the pennies. That'll be the day when I'll buy a nice fat cheap property near your home to take advantage of the cheap American labor.
6:03 am on November 20th, 2009 8
Trust me Tom, you or any other korean will NEVER be living next to me!
You as a korean don't have any right to lecture anyone.
Sheeit, foreigners particularly the US has saved your pathetic country three times in the last 70 years. First WW2, then from 1950-1953 and finally the IMF in the late 90's.
So what if the US owes China, you koreans owe your existance to the US and other foreign nations so you are the ones who should shut up and PAY BACK instead of biting the hand that feeds!
If any country takes over anything, it will be the Chinese taking over korea.
Sorry Tom, I know it's hard to swallow that korean pride of yours, but korea isn't that important in the grand scheme of things world affairs.
Again Tom thanks for this. Just one more thing I can print off and show my fellow country folk about how you koreans think.
11:22 am on November 20th, 2009 9
Much truth to the article by the Financial times. I have seen it before. During Vietnam, the Carter administration, Iraq war, and several other times I can't place at the moment. The demise and fall of the American 'Empire'.
You are correct, these are critical times for the US, they always have been in one way or the other since the country was established.
Somehow we (the US) have managed to survive our critics, and with a bumbling government chosen by an ever changing electorate, continue to come out on top.
Certainly no guarantee it will continue in the future and especially with the enourmous potential of China to dwarf the world economies financialy, including that of the US.
Korea on the other hand has always been a part of mainland asia, and its history reflects that. Recent conflicts with Japan during the 20th century would make the two natural allies. I am not surprised that many in Korea see a better future with China as its main supporter than with the US. I also see Korea realigning itself with China at some point in the future. China and Japan are next door neighbors while the US is far away. The US may even be asked to leave Korea militarily.
I believe this is what you see as well. Am I wrong?