Ende einer Supermacht: USA von baldigem Status-Verlust bedroht

© Foto: DoD photo by Senior Airman Daniel Hughes, U.S. Air Force

Der Forschungsdienst des US-Kongresses hat vor kurzem einen umfangreichen Bericht zur „Rolle der USA in der Welt: Geschichte und Probleme des Kongresses“ veröffentlicht, berichtet die "Nesawissimaja Gaseta".ZEITUNGEN

15:06 10.08.2017(aktualisiert 18:41 10.08.2017) Zum Kurzlink

Nesawissimaja Gaseta

1272559910

Darin verwiesen die Experten darauf, dass der seit dem Ende des Zweiten Weltkrieges existierende Status als globale Führungskraft schwindet. In dieser Zeit habe sich Amerika um die Verteidigung einer offenen Weltordnung bemüht, die es unter Mitwirkung seiner Verbündeten angeblich nach Mai 1945 etabliert habe.

© SPUTNIK/ IGOR ZAREMBO

USA wollen aus dem INF-Vertrag aussteigen: Russland hat „asymmetrische Antwort“

Seit dieser Zeit behaupteten alle US-Präsidenten, die Kräfte anzuführen, die für Freiheit, Demokratie und Menschenrechte in allen Regionen der Welt stehen. Zugleich kritisierten sie ständig verschiedene Machthaber, die sie für autoritär und undemokratisch hielten. Und immer wieder bemühte sich Washington darum, die Entstehung von regionalen Hegemonien zu verhindern, die ihm potenziell die Stirn bieten könnten.

Die Verfasser des Berichts stellten fest, dass einige Aussagen und Schritte des Präsidenten Donald Trump in letzter Zeit eine gewisse Unsicherheit des Establishments bezüglich der künftigen Rolle der USA provoziert haben, so dass unter Diplomaten und für die strategischen Prinzipien Washingtons zuständigen Experten und Politikern sowie in der Gesellschaft zahlreiche Debatten begonnen haben.

Sollte sich der globale Status der Vereinigten Staaten verändern, könnte das eine wesentliche Rolle für ihre Außenpolitik, ihre nationale Sicherheit und ihre außenwirtschaftliche Politik spielen, wie auch für diverse Programme innerhalb des Landes, warnten die Experten.

© AFP 2017/ MENAHEM KAHANA

Medien erfahren von Geheimtreffen Russlands, Israels und USA zu Syrien

Zugleich verwiesen sie darauf, dass einige Großmächte und vor allem China in wirtschaftlicher, militärischer und politischer Hinsicht immer stärker werden. Diese Länder haben ihre eigenen Ansichten zur Weltordnung, die nicht unbedingt mit den Ansichten der Amerikaner übereinstimmen. Deshalb müsse man in Washington diese Veränderungen bei der globalen Umverteilung der Macht analysieren und mit den jeweiligen Ländern zusammenarbeiten, um gemeinsame Vorgehensweisen auszuarbeiten, so dass auch ihre Interessen berücksichtigt würden.

CC BY 2.0 / U.S. ARMY / SGT. MICHAEL J. MACLEOD

Russland gegen bezahlte US-Krieger am Hindukusch

Bei der Ausübung seiner Außenpolitik sollte Washington den Experten zufolge sowohl auf die „hard“ als auch auf die „soft power“ zurückgreifen. Bei der „hard power“ ginge es logischerweise um den Einsatz der US-Truppen, aber auch um einige andere Formen des Drucks auf potenzielle Gegner. Zur „soft power“ gehören solche Mittel wie Diplomatie und Förderung der Entwicklung von „nicht freundschaftlichen“ Ländern, die Unterstützung von internationalen Institutionen sowie die Förderung der amerikanischen Musik, Filmkunst, Literatur usw.

Als der Chef der Haushaltsverwaltung im Weißen Haus, Mick Mulvaney, im März einen Entwurf des föderalen Haushalts für das Finanzjahr 2018 präsentierte, betonte er, dass der von Präsident Trump initiierte Entwurf ein „Haushalt der ‚hard power‘“ sei. „Der Präsident will unseren Verbündeten und auch potenziellen Gegnern klar zu verstehen geben, dass die aktuelle Administration die ‚Administration der hard power‘ ist“, so Mulvaney. Nach seinen Worten ist im kommenden Jahr eine Vergrößerung der Ausgaben des Verteidigungsministeriums, des Ministeriums für Innere Sicherheit und des Ministeriums für die Angelegenheiten der Veteranen vorgesehen. Besonders viel Geld werde aber das Pentagon bekommen.

Unter anderem geht man in Washington davon aus, dass Militärkontingente in verschiedenen Teilen Europas, des Asien-Pazifik-Raums sowie in der Golfregion entfalten werden müssten.

CC BY 2.0 / 7TH ARMY TRAINING COMMAND/ U.S. ARMY / SARAH TATE

Warum sich Pentagon und Nato in Moldawien verschanzen

Im Januar hatte Trump das Pentagon mit der Entwicklung einer neuen Militärstrategie beauftragt, damit die US-Streitkräfte alle möglichen Aufgaben zwecks Förderung der nationalen Sicherheit erfüllen können. Der Kongress soll in absehbarer Zeit entscheiden, inwieweit die mögliche Veränderung der Rolle der USA in der Welt ihre Militärstrategie, die vor den US-Streitkräften zu stellenden Aufgaben sowie die Rüstungsausgaben beeinflussen könnte bzw. sollte.
https://de.sputniknews.com/zeitungen/20170810316967879-ende-einer-supermacht-us-status-verlust/

Trump, Trump, Trump … haben wir keine anderen Themen? Von Jens Berger. (NDS)

Seit gut einem halben Jahr scheinen die deutschen Medien nur noch ein Thema zu haben: Trump! Trump in allen Facetten – Trumps Umfeld, seine Berater, sein Schwiegersohn, Russlandkontakte, Trumps große und kleine Dummheiten, Trump, Trump, Trump. Dabei gäbe es doch viel wichtigere Themen, mit denen man das Sommerloch füllen könnte. Und selbst, wenn man etwas zu den USA machen will, gäbe es doch zig richtige und wichtige Ansätze, echte Kritik zu üben. Quantität ist jedoch bei der US-Berichterstattung der deutschen Medien etwas Anderes als Qualität und die vorgebrachte Kritik ist bestenfalls oberflächlich. Von Jens Berger.

Es vergeht kaum ein Tag, an dem nicht irgendetwas über angebliche Russland-Kontakte und dazugehörige Ermittlungen irgendwelcher Behörden berichtet wird – nicht als Randnotiz, sondern als großer Aufmacher. Ganz ehrlich: Wen interessiert das? Wen interessieren die Gründe, warum Anthony Scaramucci nach zehn Tagen wieder entlassen wurde? Sie wissen nicht, wer Scaramucci ist? Darüber wurde aber doch die gesamte letzte Woche sehr prominent berichtet. Er war Kommunikationsdirektor des Weißen Hauses. Wer ist eigentlich Kommunikationsdirektor des Bundeskanzleramtes? Gibt es diese Stelle in Berlin überhaupt? Und wenn nein – wer zählt zu den namhaften und einflussreichen Beratern der Kanzlerin? Es ist doch paradox, dass in den deutschen Leitmedien viel ausführlicher über den Machtapparat der USA berichtet wird als über den Machtapparat in Berlin.

Alle Welt kennt seit Trumps Wahlsieg auch Steve Bannon, den rechten Website-Betreiber und „Chefstrategen“ Trumps. Mit welchen Medienmachern und Einflüsterern umgibt sich eigentlich Angela Merkel? Bildet Angela Merkel mit ihren zwei Busenfreundinnen Liz Mohn und Friede Springer immer noch ein „Triumfeminat“, wie die NachDenkSeiten vor sieben Jahren titelten? Wie eng sind die Verbindungen der Berliner „Hauptstadtjournalisten“ zum Kanzleramt, zur Bundesregierung und zu den Parteien? Seltsamerweise wissen wir mehr über die Connections amerikanischer Journalisten zum Weißen Haus als über die politischen Verbindungen der deutschen Journalisten, die uns täglich die Stories aus Washington als Topmeldungen präsentieren.

Und dann die endlose Berichterstattung über den angeblichen Eingriff russischer Hacker in die Präsidentschaftswahlen des letzten Jahres. Auch wenn die Faktenlage extrem mager ist, wurde dieses Thema von unseren Medien gefühlte tausendmal in aller Breite ausgewalzt – ganz ehrlich, ich kann es nicht mehr hören. Wo ist das professionelle Interesse unserer Medien, wenn es um die Beeinflussung des deutschen Wählers durch transatlantische Einflussgruppen geht? Als wir im April über einen Vorfall bei der Talkshow Anne Will berichteten, bei dem der Nahostexperte Michael Lüders von einem transatlantischen Meinungskartell niedergemacht wurde, fand dieser Blogbeitrag über 500.000 Leser. Es ist also nicht so, dass diese Themen die Öffentlichkeit nicht interessieren. Ganz im Gegenteil.

Wen interessieren die endlosen Berichte und Analysen über Trump? Machen wir doch mal ein Experiment: Beantworten Sie doch einmal bitte die Frage, mit welchen Mitteln „Russland“ angeblich die Präsidentschaftswahlen manipuliert haben soll. Und was hat dies mit „Fake News“ zu tun? Immerhin ist dies ja seit Monaten auch in Deutschland Thema Nummer Eins. Jeder kennt den Vorwurf, aber kaum wer kann diesen Vorwurf präzisieren, geschweige denn einordnen. Liegt es daran, dass die Medien ungenügend berichten? Und das, obwohl sie das Thema pausenlos plattwalzen? Man kann es ja kaum glauben, aber es ist tatsächlich so.

Wüsste man es nicht besser – wenn man die Startseiten der großen deutschen Nachrichtenportale in den letzten Monaten verfolgt hat, könnte man glatt denken, Deutschland sei der 51. Staat der USA. Und man könnte darüber hinaus fast vergessen, dass in sechs Wochen in Deutschland gewählt wird! Für unsere Medien ist das noch kein Thema. Über die Präsidentschaftswahlen in den USA haben sie indes sechs Monaten sehr intensiv – und dennoch ohne Tiefgang – berichtet.

Was den Berichten an Tiefgang fehlt, überkompensieren sie mühelos durch eine ganz klare Agenda. Eine Studie der Universität Harvard ergab, dass unglaubliche 98% der wertenden Beiträge der ARD über Donald Trump überwiegend negativ ausfielen – das ist mehr als in jedem anderen untersuchten Medium weltweit. Das Pendel scheint mit voller Wucht umzuschlagen. So unkritisch wie die deutschen Medien bei Obama waren, so überkritisch sind sie jetzt bei Trump. Paradoxerweise pausierte die Kritik genau zu dem Zeitpunkt, als Trump sich „wie ein echter US-Präsident“ benahm und völkerrechtswidrig einen Raketenangriff auf Syrien anordnete.

Wer grundsätzliche Kritik an der US-Außen- und –Sicherheitspolitik sucht, wird in den großen deutschen Medien ohnehin nicht fündig. Immer schön an der Oberfläche und immer schön ad personam – gerade so, als sei die Welt wieder in bester Ordnung, wenn Trump durch einen Nachfolger ersetzt würde. Dass seine potentiellen Nachfolger Ted Cruz und Marco Rubio in jeglicher Hinsicht noch „verrückter“ sind als Trump, wird in den gefühlt tausenden Leitartikeln zum Thema indes schon mal gern „vergessen“.

„Vergessen“ werden auch die Themen, die für deutsche Leser wirklich von Interesse sind. Wie steht es beispielsweise mit den Rettungsmilliarden für deutsche Banken? Es ist ja nicht eben so, dass auf diesem Gebiet nichts passieren würde. Wie sieht es mit der Spreizung der Einkommens- und Vermögensschere aus? Auch hier hat sich ja nichts zum Besseren entwickelt. Die fragwürdigen Russland-Sanktionen, Macrons jäher Absturz, das griechische Dauerdilemma und die politische Krise in Venezuela wären auch Themen, die sicher eine größere Beachtung verdient hätten. Und wenn man im Sommer vielleicht auch mal etwas Hintergründiges machen will: Warum nutzt man sein legendäres Korrespondentennetz nicht einmal aus, um endlich einmal ein wenig populärer über die Probleme und Nöte des afrikanischen Kontinents zu berichten?

Aber nein, solche Themen werden auch weiterhin nicht oben auf den Startseiten der großen Portale erscheinen. Stattdessen werden wir sicher bald erfahren, wer Nachfolger des Chefkochs im Weißen Haus wird und das Trumps Friseur geschäftliche Kontakte zu einem russischen Botschaftsangehörigen hat und werden schnell weiterscrollen. http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=39627

 Turkey to end support for anti-government terrorists in Syria

by ADAM GARRIEThe move is a diplomatic victory for Russian President Vladimir Putin and a big snub to the United States.

• NaNk
• Share on Facebook
• Twitter

In a seismic shift in the alignment in the Syria conflict, Turkey has confirmed it is ending support to anti-government forces in Syria. Additionally, the umbrella political group National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces is to have its recognition from Ankara withdrawn.

This represents Turkey’s position on Syria going full circle since Ankara entered the conflict in the year 2012.

Prior to 2012, Turkey and Syria enjoyed normal relations. As part of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s pivot to the Arab world, a policy some had called neo-Ottomanism, Ankara increasingly saw itself as a key king-maker in Arab affairs, in spite of the fact that few Arab countries sought Turkey’s alliance with the exception of Qatar. In this sense, Turkey’s move to support anti-government forces in Syria was more about opportunism than ideology. Although Erdogan had since his early political career advocated for what many call a Muslim Brotherhood style of Islamist politics, this had never previously prohibited him from having normal relations with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad prior to 2011.

Put another way, Turkey wanted to join the winning side and until Russia’s intervention in Syria at the behest of the Syrian government, many speculated that various anti-government forces which were heavily backed by Barack Obama’s government, would win.

Russia’s intervention combined with the incredible endurance and steadfast patriotism of the Syrian Arab Army has changed this and now both conventional wisdom and battlefield intelligence would point to a victory for the legitimate forces in Syria.

In this sense, Turkey’s exit from its political and apparently military support for anti-government forces in Syria is motivated by pragmatism just as sure as Turkey’s initial entrance into the conflict was motivated by opportunism.

Beyond this however, there are several other motivating factors.

Ever since Donald Trump took office, the United States began gradually pulling its support away from jihadist fighters in Syria while throwing the weight of US military and political power behind the Kurds who have also historically been supported by Israel.

This development his infuriated Erdogan as it would have done with any Turkish leader whether Kemalist or Islamist. While Turkey has expressed its frustrations at the US over the Kudish issue, the US seems to be complete ignoring Turkey and doing precisely the opposite of that which would make its NATO ‘ally’ contented. Turkey has stated that it will not tolerate a Kurdish state on its borders and the US has done precious little to assure Ankara that such a state will not foment.

With the possibility of increased Kurdish autonomy in Syria now increasingly probable and with the prospect of a Kurdish state in either Syria or Iraq more likely than at any time since the end of the Second World War, Turkey has reason to fear that an incredibly hostile force which has been heavily armed by the United States may spring up on its doorstep and more importantly, the doorstep of Turkey’s Kurdish regions which are a hotbed of the PKK (Kurdish Workers Party), a group Turkey labels as a terrorist group.

Secondly, in ending support for anti-government forces in Syria, Turkey is also easing latent tensions in the last remaining Middle Eastern conflict Ankara has had with Moscow. While Russia and Turkey have cooperated economically in spite of being on different sides of the Syrian conflict and while Turkey continues to participate in the Astana Peace Process with Syria’s partners Russia and Iran, Turkey was always viewed with suspicion by many throughout the process because of Ankara’s position in respect of anti-government forces.

It would appear that this is no longer the case as Turkey is now, at least from a legal and technical point of view, de-facto recognising the Syrian government as the only legitimate political force in Syria.

In the longer term, this will help Turkey in its pivot away from the US and EU and towards Russia and Russia’s regional partner Iran. President Erdogan has in recent months been cultivating increasingly good relations with Iran and as Iran is, like Turkey, on China’s economically crucial One Belt–One Road. In this sense, Turkey would need to have cooperated with Iran sooner or later and for the sake of good will in the service of pragmatism, Turkey has decided to do it sooner.

The message to Russia and Iran also sends a strong message to the United States. Turkey now has increasingly little in common with America in spite of maintaining the second largest army in NATO. Turkey is conducing commerce with Russia more vigorously than with any western state, Turkey is buying missile defence systems from Russia and not NATO and Turkey has strongly condemned the latest round of anti-Russian sanctions from the west in a statement filled with words designed to show solidarity with Moscow’s position. Turkey’s position on the Qatar-crisis further puts Ankara in a position which is slightly closer to Iran and much further from that of the United States as President Trump has openly taken the Saudi position in spite of official US neutrality on the matter.

Turkey has in this sense, turned 180 degrees since 2015 when Turkish forces shot down a Russian jet over the Syria-Turkey border. The situation may well have led to a 21st century Russo-Turkish war, but due to President Vladimir Putin’s supreme patience, Turkey and Russia reconciled their relations which continue to grow. Some may point to the 2015 shooting down of the Russian fighter jet and the political fallout resulting from the event as a sign of Turkey’s unreliability as a Russian partner. There may be some truth to this. However, what seems more important is that while Turkey’s aggressive stance towards Russia in 2015 was born out of ambition and supreme arrogance, today’s revised Turkish position is born out of not only pragmatism but the long, some would say very long term needs of the Turkish state.

Finally, some are speculating that Turkey’s move to withdraw support for Syria’s anti-government forces is designed to pave the way for eventual reconciliation with the Syrian government. The Syrian government and moreover many Syrian civilians will not be quick to forgive Turkey for a role in the Syrian conflict viewed as destructive. Because it is now a certainty that the Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party will remain in power in Damascus, Turkey will likely eventually have to engage in a thaw with the Syrian government simply because Syria is a neighbour to Turkey, but this road may be long.

In this respect, a lot depends on the Kurds. Once the last vestiges of terrorist fighters are defeated in Syria, whether the Kurds take a cooperative political approach or a hostile approach to the Syrian government will be a key factor in determining Syria-Turkish relations. Should the Kurds grow increasingly hostile to the Syrian government, Damascus may forge some sort of unspoken pact with Turkey to contain what would be a mutual enemy.

Overall though, the move from Turkey is more geo-strategic than it is regionally motivated. The clear winner in this is President Putin. His style of diplomacy which has been patient with Turkey’s frivolity in Syria for years seems to have finally paid off. Turkey is now closer to leaving NATO than one could have ever imagined. In many ways, Turkey has already left NATO in all but name. Russia’s historic nemesis is no longer a problem for Russia, but it may become a big problem for the United States. http://theduran.com/confirmed-turkey-to-end-support-for-anti-government-terrorists-in-syria/

Xi Jinping in phone call to Trump: calm down on North Korea; follow China’s lead

ALEXANDER MERCOURIS6 hours ago 99

Chinese President Xi Jinping follows up China's warning it will defend North Korea from US attack by telling US President Trump to calm down and work with China to achieve a peaceful solution to the crisis.

In typical Chinese fashion, after the mailed fist comes the velvet glove.Having warned the US via an editorial in Global Times yesterday that it will defend North Korea if the US invades North Korea and seeks to overthrow Kim Jong-un’s government, the Chinese government followed this up today with a telephone call to US President Trump by Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Both of the main official media outlets of the Chinese government – the People’s Daily and the Xinhua news agency – give accounts of the call and of what Xi Jinping said.  The more detailed account of the call is however the one provided by Xinhua.  It reads as follows

 Chinese President Xi Jinping urged restraint regarding the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula in a phone conversation with his U.S. counterpart Donald Trump on Saturday.

The concerned parties should avoid remarks and actions that could escalate tensions on the peninsula, Xi said, adding China is ready to work with the United States to appropriately resolve the issue.

Xi stressed that China and the United States have common interests in achieving denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and maintaining peace and stability there.

The concerned parities should strive to resolve the issue through dialogue and negotiation to reach a political solution, Xi said.

China is willing to keep close contacts with the United States, on the basis of mutual respect, to seek a sound settlement on the issue, he added.

Xi said he had a productive meeting with President Trump on the sidelines of the Group of 20 Summit last month in Hamburg, Germany.

Maintaining close contacts between the two leaders on issues of common concern is “very important for the development of the China-U.S. relations,” Xi added.

He urged the two sides to enhance dialogue and communication in accordance with the consensus previously reached, promote exchanges and cooperation in various fields, and appropriately deal with each other’s concerns, so as to ensure healthy and stable advancement of bilateral ties.

Furthermore, the Chinese president said that Beijing places high value on Trump’s state visit to China later this year, urging both sides to make good preparations for the visit.

Trump, for his part, also stressed the importance of maintaining close contacts between the two leaders on major issues and strengthening exchanges between their countries at all levels as well as in various areas.

The development of U.S.-China relations enjoys good momentum, he noted, voicing his belief that bilateral ties could be better.

The U.S. president also said that he is looking forward to his state visit to China.

On the Korean nuclear issue, Trump said the United States fully understands China’s efforts in resolving it, and is willing to continue to keep close contacts with Beijing on major international and regional issues of common concern.

(bold italics added)

The key words are the ones I have highlighted.

Xi Jinping told Donald Trump to moderate his language on the North Korean issue and to work in lockstep with China.  He pointed out to Trump that it is in the US interest to do so because China shares with the US the ultimate objective of the total denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.  However he also warned Trump that a failure by the US to work with China by taking unilateral steps unacceptable to China – such as a military strike against North Korea – will put the entire US-Chinese relationship in jeopardy.

That Xi Jinping particularly emphasised to Trump the last point is shown by the fact that the only actual words of his that Xinhua quotes touch on precisely this issue – “Maintaining close contacts between the two leaders on issues of common concern is “very important for the development of the China-U.S. relations.””

It is unlikely that in a diplomatic call Xi Jinping would have repeated the Chinese warning – with its implied threat of Chinese military action against the US – published yesterday in Global Times.  The Chinese would undoubtedly calculate that doing so would be needlessly provocative and might be construed by Trump as a Chinese attempt to box him into a corner, which given Trump’s present behaviour and mood might only provoke him into escalating further.  However the warning would have hovered in the background throughout the call, and would have determined its atmosphere.

This is all very typical of the Chinese style of diplomacy: first the public statement setting out in clear language China’s warning, but doing so in a way (through an editorial in an official newspaper) that is intended to avoid escalating the crisis further; then the seemingly emollient call intended to save the other side’s face by providing them a line of retreat – of course to the place the Chinese want them to retreat to!

I would add that there is no doubt that Xi Jinping during this call was following a strategy previously agreed by the whole Chinese leadership.

Xi Jinping’s call to Donald Trump is definitely not the only call the Chinese will have made to the leaders of a foreign government over the last two days.  The Chinese are undoubtedly coordinating closely with their Russian ally – Moscow will have been consulted before Xi Jinping’s call to Trump and will have been informed about it in advance, and will also be fully briefed about its outcome – and it is a certainty that senior Chinese officials – including quite possibly Xi Jinping himself – have also been speaking to Kim Jong-un and to other officials of his government.

One other government that the Chinese are also certain to be in touch with is the South Korean government, with Seoul no doubt increasingly alarmed at the way the US seems prepared to risk South Korea’s very existence in its own quest for security.

When dealing with a country like North Korea and with a leader as proud, inexperienced and volatile as Donald Trump it is never easy to be sure, but my strong guess is that Chinese diplomacy over the last two days has been effective, and that the most dangerous point of the crisis is over.

If so then I expect the shouting match between Washington and Pyongyang which has inexplicably and mysteriously blown up over the last few days to start to subside.http://theduran.com/xi-jinping-donald-trump-calm-down-north-korea-follow-china-lead/

CONFIRMED: US and North Korea “already talking” at UN Alexander Mercouris ALEXANDER MERCOURIS

• 
  
  

Latest, News

2 hours ago 99

Backchannel between middle rank US and North Korean diplomats established in New York, making opening the way to a possible breakthrough in relations like the one between the US and China in the 1970s.

• NaNk
• Share on Facebook
• Twitter

Even as the rhetorical battle between the US and North Korea threatens to spiral out of control, a report by the Associated Press suggests that their diplomats are already quietly talking to each other.

It seems that the diplomatic contacts between the US and North Korea are happening at the UN headquarters in New York, where middle rank diplomats of the two countries have been quietly talking to each other for some months.  Here is how Associated Press describes it

The contacts are occurring regularly between Joseph Yun, the U.S. envoy for North Korea policy, and Pak Song Il, a senior North Korean diplomat at the country’s U.N. mission, according to U.S. officials and others briefed on the process. They weren’t authorized to discuss the confidential exchanges and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Officials call it the “New York channel.” Yun is the only U.S. diplomat in contact with any North Korean counterpart. The communications largely serve as a way to exchange messages, allowing Washington and Pyongyang to relay information.

It seems that though the contacts have mainly focused on work to get US citizens detained in North Korea released, Yun and Pak also discuss the general state of US-North Korean relations.

Moreover it seems that though there have been sporadic diplomatic contacts at this level between the US and North Korea for some time, the dialogue has become far more sustained – developing practically to the level of a ‘backchannel” – since the Trump administration took office

Trump, in some ways, has been more flexible in his approach to North Korea than President Barack Obama. While variations of the New York channel have been used on-and-off for years by past administrations, there were no discussions over the last seven months of Obama’s presidency after Pyongyang broke them off in anger over U.S. sanctions imposed on its leader, Kim. Obama made little effort to reopen lines of communication.

The contacts quickly restarted after Trump’s inauguration, other people familiar with the discussions say.

“Contrary to the public vitriol of the moment, the North Koreans were willing to reopen the New York channel following the election of President Trump and his administration signaled an openness to engage and ‘talk about talks,’” said Keith Luse, executive director of the National Committee on North Korea, a U.S.-based group that promotes U.S.-North Korean engagement.

It is not difficult to see the influence of Rex Tillerson – President Trump’s realist Secretary of State – behind these moves.

The Yun-Pak dialogue is for the moment little more than an exchange of information.  However if a decision is made to get talks properly started, it could serve as the vehicle to set them up.

A good precedent would be the channel Henry Kissinger opened to China with the help of Pakistani and Romanian diplomats in 1971, which led to Kissinger’s first secret trip to China and talks with Prime Minister Zhou Enlai in July 1971.  That eventually led to US President Nixon’s breakthrough visit to China in February 1972.

Kissinger’s contacts with China in 1971 had to be conducted in great secrecy because of the strong opposition to a normalisation of relations between the US and China which existed both in the US and China and also internationally.  Indeed relations between the US and China at this time were so fraught that the first public sign of a diplomatic thaw between the two countries was the visit of a US table-tennis team to China in April 1971.

It is difficult to recall today the extent to which in the 1950s and 1960s relations between US and China were as tense as those between the US and North Korea are today.  However the rhetoric used by the US and China about each other at that was every bit as tough as the rhetoric used by the US and North Korea about each other now.

Moreover the US during this period was also trying to overthrow of the Chinese government – and replace it with a pro-US ‘Chinese government’ it had in place in Taiwan – just as it was seeking regime change in North Korea until recently, especially during the period of the George W. Bush administration, and it also sought to enforce a worldwide economic blockade of China then, just it is trying to enforce a worldwide economic blockade of North Korea now.

In the event President Nixon went to Beijing and met with Mao Zedong – an individual as vilified then as Kim Jong-un is now – achieving what is still considered the greatest and most spectacularly successful stroke of diplomacy carried out by the US since the end of the Second World War.

North Korea is obviously not as important today as China was in the 1970s, though with the rapid advance of its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programme it is arguably more dangerous.  However there is no reason for the secrecy which circumstances forced on Nixon and Kissinger in 1971.  The entire world – apart from some recalcitrant politicians in the US, but including the governments of China, Russia, South Korea and Japan – would welcome US steps to normalise relations with North Korea.

If President Trump wants to secure his place his history he could do worse than copy the example of Kissinger and Nixon, and use the diplomatic channel available to him in New York – and the help offered to him by the Chinese and the Russians – to get himself an invitation to Pyongyang. http://theduran.com/us-north-korea-already-talking/