Posted on 02/03/2018 12:08:34 PM PST by GoldenState_Rose
Washington’s decision to drop Victor Cha as its next US ambassador to South Korea was not due to his disagreement with the Trump administration’s consideration of a limited strike on North Korea, a diplomatic source said Friday.
“As far as I know, the reason Victor Cha was withdrawn was not his differing views on North Korea policy,” the source said, asking to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the matter.
“I believe there were many other factors. It is extremely difficult to give a detailed answer on what other factors were,” he said. He refused to discuss his source but added that it was “credible.”
Washington’s decision to withdraw Cha as a nominee for US ambassador to South Korea sparked concerns that the Trump administration is seriously considering a “bloody nose” strike -- a limited strike on North Korea to send a message that provocations would not be tolerated -- and seeking to fill the post with a figure more hawkish than Cha.
But the likelihood of a US military option on North Korea is not high at the current stage, the source said. “At the current stage, we are focusing on resolving (the North Korea issue) peacefully.”
“It seems that there are divisions within the administration,” Bruce Klingner, a former CIA officer and a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was quoted as saying by CNN.
The US has said that it prefers a diplomatic solution to the North Korea crisis, but also said that there were all options available, including military ones.
Seoul’s Foreign Ministry said Thursday that Washington sought Seoul’s understanding over the withdrawal of Victor Cha for the ambassadorship and the allies continue to cooperate on filling the long-vacant post as soon as possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at koreaherald.com ...
This show is just gonna get better and better.
It could be that South Korea did not provide “agreement.” When the US proposes to send an ambassador to a country, it sends notification to the host country requesting their agreement on the person proposed. If they object, which is rare, then the nomination is withdrawn. It is reciprocal.
Agrément —
Diplomatic courtesy requires that before a state appoints a new chief of diplomatic mission to represent it in another state, it must be first ascertained whether the proposed appointee is acceptable to the receiving state. The acquiescence of the receiving state is signified by its granting its agrément to the appointment. It is unusual for an agrément to be refused, but it occasionally happens.
I didn't think of that kabar, interesting. Especially considering how the current party in power in South Korea is known to be appeasing of the North. (This must drive President Trump crazy.) Thank you.
Usually, agrement is obtained before the confirmation process, so upon further reflection, it is probably not the reason. The process is tightly held so as not to embarrass the nominee and the host government. Maybe something came up during the security clearance process.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.