After much anticipation, the summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un finally took place in Singapore on June 12, with saturation coverage in the international media.
North Korea, generally derided as a rogue state, suddenly found its leader to be an international political superstar on par with the US president.
Yesterday’s “Little Rocket Man” is now a “very worthy, very hard negotiator” — even honorable.
Trump’s new-found appreciation of the North Korean leader tends to legitimize Kim’s regime at home and abroad. Not only this, but Trump has “committed to provide security guarantees” to North Korea, which essentially means that the US would not seek to destabilize the Kim regime.
“We will be stopping the war games, which will save us a tremendous amount of money, plus I think it is very provocative,” Trump said.
He was virtually repeating what Pyongyang has said about joint US-South Korea military exercises, including the terminology of describing them as “war games” to threaten North Korea.
Of course, Kim “reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula, but what does that mean?
The Korean Peninsula has two state entities. Only North Korea has nuclear weapons, but South Korea has the US security cover, which would include its nuclear component, if necessary.
And when Pyongyang talks of its commitment to “complete denuclearization” of the peninsula, it would imply the withdrawal of about 28,000 US troops stationed in the South as a security guarantee against a North Korean attack, and any harm to them from a potential North Korean attack would mean a US counterresponse that might include all elements of its military power.
Now that Trump has indicated that the US would withdraw from periodic joint “war games” (military exercises) with South Korea that are “provocative” to North Korea, this could form the basis of follow-up negotiations over the phased reduction or removal of the North’s nuclear arsenal.
Trump has even indicated that his country might eventually withdraw its troops from South Korea.
Despite such unilateral pronouncements of the US president, there is no road map or time frame for the process of denuclearization. It would appear that Trump is willing to go a fair bit of the way, but his unpredictability is a problem.
At the same time, Pyongyang’s commitment to denuclearize is vague and of a general nature. However, Trump seems to be so impressed with Kim that he is even prepared to invite him to the White House at some appropriate time.
No wonder Pyongyang is quite pleased with the way the summit panned out.
According to the Korean Central News Agency, Kim won support from Trump for “the principle of step-by-step and simultaneous action in achieving peace.”
“Kim Jong-un clarified the stand that if the US takes genuine measures for building trust in order to improve the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea]-US relationship, the DPRK too, can continue to take additional goodwill measures of the next stage commensurate with them,” it said.
Of course, Pyongyang is taking some liberty with its presentation, as there is nothing to suggest, based on reporting of the summit, that the US has used such terminology.
What next? There is nothing laid out concretely in the summit declaration on the follow-up.
Although there is a commitment on North Korea’s part to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the US proviso of immediate, irreversible and verifiable denuclearization, so much emphasized by Washington before the summit, is conspicuous by its absence.
It is said to have featured in the talks and is understood between the parties.
During his follow-up tour to South Korea, Japan and China, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggested that denuclearization should be done (substantially) by the end of Trump’s current term.
Trump seems to think that it will be part of a process that might take quite some years; some have even suggested 10 or more years if the process goes ahead. In the meantime, Trump has declared the nuclear threat from North Korea over.
One would very much like to hope so; but with so little to go about how denuclearization would proceed, it might as well turn out to be the usual Trump rhetoric of going from one extreme to another.
In the meantime, his style of conducting diplomacy by tweets seems to be upending the post-World War II international order, with the US’ allies suddenly feeling cast off.
Sushil Seth is a commentator based in Australia.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs