Thread by @FrankJannuzi

North Korea and ROK Special adviser Moon Chung-in. Thread.

Just finished a dinner with Moon Chung-in, special adviser to President Moon Jae-in (no relation) of South Korea. Moon made news today, but the real story is NOT what Vox reported here: vox.com/2019/2/26/1824…

Moon was asked about a hypothetical Trump-Kim deal - a deal that would indeed be a bad deal for the US...IF it bore any resemblance to what is going to happen in Hanoi in a few hours...which happily for all of us, it does NOT. Asked about this hypothetical deal, Moon condemned it

The hypothetical deal touted by the reporter / sanctions relief in exchange for vague promises from DPRK / would in fact be a bad deal. But Moon clarified tonight / and has known all along / that the USG is not planning to provide sanctions relief in exchange for vague promises.

Sanctions relief will be embraced by USA&ROK if and only if DPRK takes tangible, verifiable, steps to halt its nuclear weapons program as the first step of what is likely to be a long and difficult path toward total denuclearization. Modest sanctions relief would be appropriate.

Let me underscore for Alex Ward, who seems to believe he has some sort of a scoop here, that it should come as no surprise that when asked about a hypothetical crappy deal, the senior ROK official proclaimed it crappy. That’s just common sense. USG knows Moon Chung-in well.

@POTUS and @StateDept Have no intention of providing sanctions relief in exchange for vague DPRK promises. I am (blissfully) no longer in govt. But I can say with complete confidence that anyone who briefed Ward and claimed that USG would be so gullible hasn’t got a clue.

Some broad elements of Ward’s hypothetical “deal” no doubt DO bear some resemblance to reality // DPRK steps to freeze (under monitoring) Yongbyon, modest sanctions relief, non-hostility pledges, humanitarian assistance. But devil in details, and Ward provides none.

I have a novel suggestion: how about we all wait to see what actually emerges from Hanoi before assessing its value? And how about we abandon ridiculous, crass, moronic “Kim Wins!” versus “Trump Wins!” reaction in favor of sober evaluation of strengths and weaknesses of any deal?

Let me add another suggestion: any progress achieved in Hanoi - no matter how modest - should be measured against two yard sticks:
1) does it move us CLOSER to goal of verifiable denuclearization?
2) is it better than alternatives (return to “max pressure” or military options)?

If the deal reached in Hanoi moves us closer to denuclearization and is more effective in advancing that objective that the alternatives, it will be a “good deal.”
Am I happy that Trump shoulders this responsibility? Let me be diplomatic (for once) and answer: “no comment.”

The question itself is irrelevant, because Trump is President, and he must shoulder this responsibility. Therefore, I wish him well. I want him to succeed. I don’t see everything in zero sum political terms. Like Mansfield, I don’t give a fuck who gets credit for peace efforts.

What I care about is whether we can grasp meaningful progress toward peace and denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. And unlike Vox, I prefer to judge the results of the summit when we have....wait for it....RESULTS.
That is all for now.
Pacem.

@threadreaderapp unroll