Who came out on top in Singapore, where the president of the most powerful nation on Earth met the North Korean leader, who has made significant steps towards becoming a nuclear power?
International media seem agreed on the answer: Neither the US nor North Korea, but China, a country that was not present, but whose shadow loomed large.
Back in Washington, US President Donald Trump told Americans that they could “sleep well tonight,” because the North Korean nuclear issue, which former US president Barack Obama considered “the most dangerous problem” facing the US, had been solved by him.
“I have solved that problem,” he told reporters.
So, in Trump’s mind there was no doubt as to who had gained the most from that Singapore meeting, halfway around the world.
However, Trump was also generous in his praise of the roles played by the other participants, most particularly by the dictator Kim Jong-un who, at 33, is less than half the age of the septuagenarian.
Instead of insulting him as “Little Rocket Man,” Trump now calls him a “very talented man” who took over the running of North Korea when he was only 26.
Trump at times sounded almost envious of the younger man. “He speaks and his people sit up at attention,” the US leader said. “I want my people to do the same.”
Understandably, the US media is checking what the US side said before the summit and the wording of a joint statement. In particular, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on May 31 said that the US was “committed to the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
That phrase is so ingrained in the US position that it has been reduced to its initials — CVID.
However, North Koreans have not used the phrase or its initials, but only talked of “complete denuclearization.”
In the June 12 joint statement, only the words “complete denuclearization” appear and Pompeo was pressed by the media on whether Pyongyang accepted “verifiable” and “irreversible.”
The secretary insisted that the words “complete denuclearization” included the concepts of verifiable and irreversible.
Presumably, future meetings with North Koreans would make it clear if this is indeed the case.
While denuclearization lies at the heart of the North Korean issue, Trump brought up another issue with ramifications for the role of the US in Asia and the future of the alliance system, in particular with South Korea and Japan.
Since the end of World War II, the US has had a policy of stationing troops abroad. In Asia, they are primarily in South Korea, which hosts 28,500 US troops, and Japan, with 50,000 US soldiers.
Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign said that he could pull US troops out of overseas military bases, because the US’ allies do not pay their fair share.
North Korea, backed by China, would love to see US troops withdrawn from South Korea. It now seems to be dealing with a US president who agrees with it.
At the June 12 news conference, Trump said the joint US-South Korean military exercises were “very expensive” and, adopting Pyongyang and Beijing’s vocabulary, described them as “provocative.”
Without any discussion with South Korea, or even with the Pentagon, Trump agreed with Kim to suspend military exercises.
This has certainly raises doubts in Seoul about the reliability of the US as an ally. Similar thoughts have likely crossed the minds of Japanese officials.
While Trump might be primarily focused on the narrow issue of costs, China no doubt is thinking of the long-term future of Asia, particularly Northeast Asia.
Much depends on the way the agreement with North Korea takes shape.
Conceivably, Seoul, which under South Korean President Moon Jae-in is big on North-South ties, might no longer feel a need for a US security umbrella.
However, if things do not work out, the result might be an arms race in East Asia.
Certainly, South Korea and Japan would both have to think seriously about a nuclear option if North Korea is still viewed as hostile.
If Japan and South Korea, both US allies, do not feel secure, then Taiwan, which faces increasing isolation and Chinese pressure, would not look to the US for its defense. It, too, might pursue a nuclear option.
China, which claims the right to use force against Taiwan, might act pre-emptively.
The Singapore summit marks only the first step. The future of Asia is up for grabs as the US backs off from its role as the guarantor of stability in the region. The outcome is uncertain, but people will position themselves for the unknown.
Frank Ching opened the Wall Street Journal’s Beijing bureau in 1979 after 10 years with the New York Times.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US