Can U.S-North Korea Denuclearisation Talks Be Saved After a Failed Second Summit?

A second summit between United States President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un, in the Vietnamese capitol Hanoi has past without any agreement.

President Trump said that he could not agree to Chairman Kim’s demands for lifting all sanctions on North Korea, in exchange for dismantling the Yongbyon nuclear complex. North Korean officials rebuked Trump’s comments, stating that they only wanted some key sanction lifted. It seems that both sides were not willing to budge and find some middle ground towards a first major agreement on the issue of denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula.     .

With two summits past, surely a third meeting between President Trump and Chairman Kim could only occur in the future if there is much more groundwork between diplomats from both sides. I was sceptical of the first summit in Singapore in 2018, but afterwards agreed that it was a ice breaker of shorts, to get the ball rolling. Even though the outcome of the first summit was just a vague statement agreed between the two leaders, the future was looking brighter.

Over the eight month gap between summits, senior diplomats met numerous times, including U.S Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his North Korean counterpart Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho. I was think when the second summit was announced, the diplomats had reached either an agreement ready to be signed or at least a roadmap to present at the summit, but from the sudden collapse of talks, this does not seem the case.

So what next? It’s too early to speculate on a long term path, but signs of North Korea rebuilding their main rocket launch sight in Sohae, and images indicating a planned missile launch at the Sanumdong facility, are not good signs for future negotiations. If these actions are true, Chairman Kim is just trying to pressure the U.S into making concessions.

If both sides are truly interested in finding a solution, a long term road map is required. The issue is how to come to an agreed roadmap, as both sides differ on what denuclearisation means. The Trump administration wants a Complete, Verifiable and Irreversible Dismantlement (CVID) of North Korea’s nuclear programme, and Chairman Kims wants full sanctions relieve and security guarantees (including an official peace agreement). To overcome these differences, as indicated at the failed second summit, some slight sanctions relieve may be required to allow North Korea to follow through with commitments they have announced, including dismantling the Yongbyon nuclear complex. If both parties can agree to some small concessions, I think this could be a way forward in future talks.

More trust is required between both sides. Perhaps as been mentioned by experts, a liaison office in both countries, will assist in coordinating future negotiations on a more regular basis. Also, a more multilateral path in negotiations could spur on further discussions. Although, the Six-party talks in the early 2000s failed, more involvement of both South Korea and China could be the key to overcome differences between American and North Korean objectives. As China is the only major backer of North Korea, and South Korea forging greater relations with their counterparts in the North — and with both counties likely to suffer most in any military conflict between the U.S and North Korea, their direct involvement in discussions are paramount in a future roadmap to denuclearisation on the Korean Peninsula.

One Year on: Rohingya Peoples Still Living in Refugee Camps in Bangladesh

It’s been a year since the Myanmar (Burma) military, conducted raids on Rohingya villages in Rakhine state. The so called ‘clearance operations,’ as described by the military were to find Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (Arsa) militants, who on the 25th August 2017, attacked and killed 12 security personnel.



For over a month, the Myanmar military were claimed to have attacked hundreds of villages, burning, lutting, killing and raping along the way - forcing over 700,000 Rohingya to flee to refugee camps across the border in Bangladesh. The Myanmar authorities both civilian and military denied the extent of the violent crackdown, calling the operation as anti-terrorism raids.

The international community were slow in condemning the actions by the Myanmar military, and dithered on a response. The international community published statements calling for the end of the violent crackdown, with some United Nations officials calling the atrocities as ethnic cleansing. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) were unable to agree to take more affirmative action.

A year later, most of the 700,000 Rohingya still live in makeshift camps along the Myanmar/Bangladesh border, while the Myanmar civilian government and the military generals dither on resolving the issues. All that has happened since, is the government led by State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi (Prime Minister) have agreed with the Bangladeshi authorities that over the next two years Rohingya refugees will be repatriated back to Rakhine state on a voluntary basis. If and when this process begins, it will have the support of the UNDP and UNHCR, who in June this year signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Myanmar government, to assist in the repatriation process.  These a steps in the right direction for both the Myanmar civilian government and the international community, although without assurances of rights and protections for returning Rohingya, there are no guarantees that similar atrocities and will not occur in the future.



The repatriation process would likely rebuild villages and supply aid for returning Rohingya, but the issue of citizenship and freedom of movement have not been resolved and look unlikely in the near future, that’s if government official signals are correct. The Myanmar government and much of the majority Buddhist population view the Rohingya as Bengali Muslims from Bangladesh and have no rights to Myanmar citizenship since they were stripped of this under the 1982 Citizenship Act. These one million or so stateless peoples can not keep carrying on living in fear and lacking any human rights.

If the international community are advocates of the responsibility to protect, then increased pressure on the Myanmar government and military on the issue of citizenship and protection is required. The only major steps of cohesion on the Myanmar government and military has been a few statements of condemnation from world leaders, and limited unilateral sanctions. A year after the crackdown, the U.S have placed sanctions on a few military generals and police officials .

Myanmar is still in democratic transition, and Aung San Suu Kyi is trying to balance civilian governance, while maintaining relations with the military, who still hold sway over security, society and the economy. A return of tougher sanction will do more harm to Aung San’s efforts to bring democracy and rebuild the economy, but more targeted sanctions against key military generals, and a full break in relations with the military establishment by the west could force the hand of the military gripe over Myanmar

As for accountability for the inproportionate attacks on the Rohingya population,  There has been calls for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the military actions - although Myanmar is a non-party to  the Rome statute, the UNSC has the power to refer the case to the ICC. Though it is not as straightforward, this would require agreement by all members including the permanent five (U.S, UK French, Russia & China). China has been reluctant to blame or pressure the Myanmar government or military in the past and would likely block any moves to refer a case to the ICC. Nonetheless this is an avenue that other council members need to keep pushing, as the only real prospect for international action against the Myanmar military.

Furthermore, the Myanmar civilian government has announced a independent commission of inquiry into human rights violations during the August 2017 crackdown. Not much detail has been released, except that the commission will include a mix of domestic and international representatives and experts. On paper, this sounds like owning up to responsibility for the violence, but how independent will it be. Will the military establishment fully cooperate? As most Rohingya refugees will not be returning to Myanmar any time soon, will the commision visit the refugee camps in Bangladesh and talk to refugees about their experiences? Will the commission have the power to prosecute or at least recommend individuals to be put on trial? Theses questions have not been answered yet - and likely this commission will just show that the government is taking action, but nothing concrete happens. The military for instance are unlikely to cooperate or allow their personnel to be prosecuted. And the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh are likely not want to talk to a commission of enquiry conducted on behalf of the Myanmar government, who have not stood up for their rights, independent or not. To overcome these issues, a more independent commission would be better of been run by the UN, even in cooperation with the Myanmar’s own independent  commission.

What could transpire from the Trump and Kim summit?

After a year of “Rocket Man” and “Dotard,” President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim-Jong-un have meet each other at a summit in June, in Singapore. It is the first time a sitting American President has met with a North Korean leader — President Clinton came close to visiting Pyongyang in 2000, but he declined in the end. 

This summit (or show) was an on-off and on-again affair, with a week before the planned summit, Trump cancelled it. After a rush of shuttle diplomacy between U.S and North Korean officials, both sides buried their differences for the good of international peace making. 

As expected, the summit came with lots of hype, but not much else. A vague joint statement was signed, but no plan to achieve any of the aims of what was discussed or verbally agreed — only just reaffirmed Kim’s intentions of denuclearisation and peace on the Korean peninsula.  On the other hand, Trump, the next day gave away a major concession of military pressure by cancelling future U.S-South Korea war games, stating financial reasons. Kim has seemed to have got the most out of the summit, by just meeting with a sitting American President — something his father or grandfather never achieved. In propaganda terms, this was a major coup for Kim and his regime. The days after the summit, the North Korean media was plasted with photos of the meeting and the handshake between the two leaders. The Kim regime had finally got want they wanted. So, what next? 

It has been over six weeks since the summit between the two leaders, but there has been no further progress in terms denuclearisation. President Trump has just been tweeting all sorts of self-gratitude on how he will rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons and bring peace to the Korean peninsula. As for Kim Jong-un, he has not publicly mentioned any further details about denuclearisation. Since the summit there has been another visit by the U.S Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who was met with calls of “gangster-like mindset” by the North Korean officials. The Secretary of State did not even meet Kim, as planned, as he had on previous visits to Pyongyang.

                                                                     

Such an historical event ran the risk of failing to bring about an acceptable outcome for both sides. Even though Kim had told the South Koreans that he is willing to denuclearise if he was given security guarantees by America, there is no evidence or signals that he would hand over all of the weapons and allow access to international inspectors. Difference in definition of denuclearisation is another stumbling block to a peaceful resolution. North Korea view denuclearisation as a Korean peninsula free of all nuclear threats, where the U.S see the prism as North Korea must approach the issue as a Complete, Verifiable and Irreversible Dismantlement (CVID) of its nuclear programme.   

why would Kim do such a thing? North Korea has spent decades defying the international community, in light of increasing sanctions to build a nuclear and ballistic missile capability, which has become the regimes guarantor of survival. Perhaps the latest sanctions have finally impacted the North Korean economy to such a state that the Kim regime has decided to seek negotiations with America and the international community? The latest UN sanctions have almost placed a total import and export ban on most goods, although issues of implementation have allowed some illegal goods to enter and leave North Korea. 

As for America, are they in a position to offer a workable security guarantee, meaning that Kim feels safe that America will not try to attack North Korea or bring about regime change, as had happened to Colonel Gaddafi in Libya and Saddam Hussein in Iraq? The only meaningful guarantee would be the removal of American troops from South Korea (and possibly Japan); and a formal peace agreement, bringing the Korean war to an official end. The stumbling block would be the removal of American troops in the region.  

China would welcome news of a U.S troop withdrawal, but this would mean an American pivot away from the region and could lead to souring relations with South Korea and Japan, (and we can’t forget Taiwan). The U.S has been for over seven decades the security guarantor for both Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, offering a nuclear umbrella, but a deal with Kim Jong-un could dismantle these alliances. If this situation does occur, China will be in a much stronger position, why’ll America will be weaker. China will have free reign on their doorstep to become the sole regional power, dictating future geopolitics in East Asia. 

The cancelled Trump-Kim summit could be good for future negotiations

News just in is the historic summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, set to take place on the 12th June in Singapore has been cancelled. 

President Trump has sent a letter to the North Korean leader, stating that due to recent "tremendous anger and open hostility displayed" towards the United States in the last couple of weeks, he has decided to not meet Kim at The planned summit.

This could be a good thing for Trump and his foreign (or lack of) policy over North Korea. After months of talking up the historic meeting and calling for a Nobel prize, he has finally realised that he has been made a fool by Kim Jong-un. North Korea does not have any intentions of giving up it's nuclear weapons, unless major concessions are granted to them by President Trump, such as troop withdrawals from the region and sanction relive. Much of these concession by either North Korea or the U.S were unlikely going to transpire.

After decades of development, in spite of increasing international sanctions, Kim Jong-un and his father before him have based their family and counties survival on obtaining a  nuclear capability, which they now posses. President Trump by excepting the invitation by Kim in March, was going to give Kim and his regime a propaganda tool and some form of legitimacy, even before the real and expected long negotiations.

By President Trump cancelling the upcoming summit, he has now placed the emphasis on the North Korean leader to back down on recent rhetoric and show real signs that he wants to really negotiate on the nuclear issue, not just play games with the U.S and the rest of the international community, as has happened in the past. 

Lets hope that this setback will not draw the U.S and North Korea towards military conflict, instead allow for the right conditions to be in place for a future summit between the two leaders.         

U.S strikes against Assad's forces have only complicated the Syrian conflict

The unilateral strikes by the United States on a Syrian air base have only further complicated an already messy conflict, rather than offer any strategic outcome on the ground in Syria or chance for peace.   

                                               

The decision to take this course of action seemed to be based on domestic consideration — perhaps also  to show Russia and even China — that President Trump is willing to use unilateral action when required, and for America's national interests. It may have been a coincidence that China's President Xi Jinping was on a visit to America, at the same time as the strikes were occurring, but I thing this was not the case. I think Trump used the strikes against Assad's forces as a pretext to outline to President Xi, that America could take similar action against North Korea, if China does not begin resolving the nuclear arms issue. This is in light of Trumps earlier warning for China and North Korea.

Perhaps even domestic issue played into Trump's calculations. Conducting a military operation against Assad's forces  have turned focus away from Trumps decreasing popularity and Russia's links to the Trump campaign. Media attention have been on the administration's foreign policy, rather then Trump's problems at home.      


Since Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, the U.S and other western countries have blamed Assad’s forces where’s Russia had argued that Syrian jets had hit a rebel controlled chemical weapons facility located in the town. As we know, getting any viable facts out of Syria is extremely difficult, with all sides posting misinformation. Due to this lack of viable facts or information, an independent investigation should have been concluded before Trump ordered unilateral strikes on a Syrian airbase.

The strikes against Assad’s forces will not change the situation on the ground or Assad’s overall aims. As there is no independent evidence of the true perpetrator(s) of Tuesday’s chemical attack, Assad will unlikely change tact and halt his forces from continuing their combat operations against opposition forces. This action by the U.S could just embolden Assad to step up conventional attacks on rebel and civilian positions. As the former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, has said, Assad has no military advantage from using chemical weapons, and that we can not rule out that the attack was staged by opposition forces. Until we have clear independent proof of who conducted the chemical attack, we can not accuse the Assad regime or opposition forces.

Trumps decision to order the strikes could well further strain relations with Russia, and drag America and it’s allies deeper into the conflict. The Russian President, Putin, and other officials have condemned the unilateral strikes. They have so far refrained from offering any plans for retaliation, which is understandable, as they will not want to escalate the situation further.

The question now is what happens next? The likely answer will be no major change on the ground in the short term, though in the long term, this unilateral action could well damage future peace efforts, and any cooperation between the U.S and Russia. The only way that this strike will have any purpose is if America changes policy toward Assad and militarily and politically begin regime change in Syria. This seems unlikely as there is no wider support within America or it's western allies. 

As for Assad, he could reconsider his regime position concerning peace talks with opposition groups. He may decide not to participate in future talks, especially if Russia and Iran steadfastly remain in support, which will likely be the case. Russia and Iran could well increase its military and/or economic support.    

The Race to the United Nations Hotseat

As we are gripped by the Presidential election campaign between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, another less newsworthy contest is taking place in another part of the United States, that been in the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

In the past 5 months, the International organisation has been in the process of deciding who will take over from  Ban-Ki Moon, as the next Secretary-General of the UN. All up 11 candidates have put their names in the hat to become the next chief diplomat and administrator of the UN. Six men and five women are contesting for the role–coming from different regions and backgrounds–some have formerly held elected office in their perspective countries or head of UN departments or other international organisations.

The process of choosing the next SG has changed slightly, with each candidate having the opportunity to be interviewed by members of the General Assembly (GA), and hold a live debate. This is the first time that such events have happened within the process of choosing a SG. Some might think that a candidate is elected by all UN members, but that is far from the truth, only the 15 members of the Security Council (UNSC), in behind closed door meetings decide in a number of rounds of what's called  ‘straw polling,’ on who they would present to the GA as their preferred candidate, who then technically rubber stamp the least objectionable person of the Permanent five UNSC members (P5: U.S, UK, France, Russia and China). So in reality the P5, especially the U.S and Russia come to some agreement on which candidate will best suit their own interests, rather than someone who can best manage the UN and deal with current and future crisis or events crippling the world.

Many UN analysts, commentators and the media predicted at the beginning of the process, that Irina Bokova of Bulgaria, the current head of UNESCO would likely become the next UNSG-but the former Portuguese Prime Minister and UN high commissioner for refugees António Guterre is leading the contest, with the most support among the UNSC members, after the first few straw poll meetings. Ms Bokova was seen as favourite, as there seems to be an unwritten rule that regions take turns to have a UNSG, and as a Eastern European has not held this position in the past, that it was time for a candidate from this region, for which Russia has supported this notion. Furthermore, there has also been support for a women Secretary-General.

Although Ms Bokova is well qualified and experienced, along with all the other candidates, but it seems the U.S and other member states are more inclined towards Mr Guterre, as the new UNSG. We must assume that the U.S own national interests lay with Mr Guterre, as a safe bet, rather than obliging to the calls for choosing  a women, and from a Eastern European state, by not considering Ms Bokova. Unless Russia begins to voice an outright rejection of Mr Guterre, and fully commit to having a Eastern European take the position, we will likely Mr Guterre or another male candidate as the next Secretary-General. If Russia does outright reject Mr Guterre, another candidate, Miroslav Lajcak, the Slovak foreign minister, has raced up to second position, and could become the preferred choice, if both the U.S and Russia are still at loggerheads.  

It is a shame that a women candidate could not be in serious consideration for the position, as it is about time that gender not be an issue when choosing the next head of the UN. Ms Bokova is as qualified and experienced as Mr Guterre, but due to past cold war animosities and the current international system, the U.S was always inclined not to proffer a candidate from an Eastern European state, especially Ms Bokova who has irritated the U.S in the past.  

So as it currently stands, a women candidate may have to wait till next time, as either the front runner Mr Guterre, or second placed Mr Lajcak are likely to become the next UNSG, unless no agreement is found over these two candidates, meaning we might get a surprise chose. The announcement of who takes over from Ban Ki-Moon should be made in November, and until then it will be interesting to see how far the U.S and Russia will go to block each others preferred  candidates. But at some stage over the next two-three months a compromise  will have to be made. Watch this space.  

U.S Naval Presence Increasing Tensions in the South China Sea

Over the last few weeks’ tensions between the People Republic of China and the United States has hit a new level in relations between the two superpowers. In the last week or so, the U.S has sent a naval destroyer USS Lassen within the Chinese claimed 12-mile exclusion zone of the Subi reef. 

The issue of contention with this act by the U.S and protest from the Chinese government is linked to the ongoing dispute over a number of small islands and reefs in the South China sea. China along with the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Taiwan have been at loggerheads for many years and even decades over sovereignty of these islands and reefs. In recent years China have built man made islands and placed runways and other structures on them, claiming their right to do so, even though under international law these specks of land or reefs are in international waters.

A US State Department spokesmen John Kirby, has since the incident stated that the U.S navy was just exercising its rights of freedom of navigation in international water, as allowed under international law. The Chinese on the other hand viewed this as provocative and was not needed at such a time. I think that the action taken by the U.S maybe provocative and was seeking a reaction from the Chinese authorities, but was not in violation of international law or encroached the sovereignty of China. One U.S naval vessel passing by a group of man-made islands does not declare war or instigate increased tensions between the two superpowers, all that it seems to have done is show that the action of building artificial islands on undeclared reefs as provocative for a long term solution to the dispute.

With at times high tensions between a number of countries in the region all claiming territorial rights over many of the islands and reefs, with China having the largest claim, the ongoing dispute needs a solution found for the good of international peace and security. The waters in the South China sea are major trading routes with large amounts of ships passing these islands and reefs every day. So what needs to happen to prevent a major incident involving casualties is first, for China to halt the reclaiming and building of artificial islands and structures in the disputed area, and second, for all the countries involved to organise an international conference to find a compromise in regards to claims over the area. With the U.S stating that they will not back down, and will carry out further ‘rights to freedom of navigation’ in the South China sea, this could lead to military to military confrontation, if agreement over the islands and reefs are not found.                      

Changing Dimensions of the Syrian Conflict

The conflict in Syria is over four years old, with no signs of an end in the increasing violence and death toll.

The continuing conflict has forced millions of people to seek protection in other countries. As Europe has witnessed large amounts refugees from Syria, bringing to the realisation that it is not just a regional concern but also an international one. As I have written about in earlier posts, the international community has not effectively found a solution to ending the conflict. The United Nations Security Council has been divided, with Russia and China vetoing four key resolutions aimed at putting pressure on the Syrian government to put an end to the violence and negotiate peace.

Now we have a situation where the Assad regime has managed with the support of Russia to keep control of much of the strategic areas of Syria, including the major coastal towns and cities. Reports over the last few weeks have speculated increasing assistance to the Assad regime by Russia, as a number of jets, hundreds of personnel and other military equipment have been sent to an airbase in Latakia. The Russian's have claimed that these forces are not intended to support Assad's forces, and even the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry stated that this increase  is just for protection of Russian forces already in Syria, although Kerry was concern of future intentions of an increasing Russian military presence in Syria. This concern by America seems more of a risk that the U.S led coalition and Russian forces could accidentally come into conflict, rather than issue of Russian troops and equipment present in Syria. This renewed military buildup by Russia comes at a time when the U.S and its allies step up their own campaign not against the Assad regime, but Isis, who have been gaining a foothold in the continuing violence and instability.

The conflict in Syria has changed the dimensions of the international community’s response, with focus turning to combating extremist forces within Syria, rather than trying to remove Assad or finding a solution to ending the conflict. This war against Isis has become the key strategy of the international community with increasing emphasis by the U.S and other countries including Australia and the UK. In respect to Australia, in the last few weeks Royal Australian Air force jets have begun bombing Isis forces in not just Iraq, but also Syria. The UK on the other hand limited its role to just fighting Isis in Iraq, but there is speculation that in the next couple of months Parliament could decide to authorise airstrikes within Syria. It’s all well and good that the international community is fighting against extremists groups like Isis, but this is only one actor in the conflict, there needs to be a refocus towards  either renewing pressure on Assad to step down or working with the Assad regime to finding a solution to bring peace to the people of Syria.    

The case of Syria is now proving that if conflicts of such a nature are not solved early, even though from the beginning this war had many dimensions from multiple actors internally and externally, there should have been a larger emphasis for the root causes of the spread from protest to all out civil war. These causes in my mind was Assad and his regime. The sad thing with Syria, was that Russia has been a longtime supporter of Assad and his regime, meaning that the UNSC were unable to influence the Russians to support the stance of majority of the international community towards placing pressure on Assad. Even China's long term policy of non-intervention played a key role in its decision not to agree with the resolutions tabled by the west.

So the outcome at present is that we have an outside extremist group in ISIS which stems from the occupation of U.S led forces and conflict Iraq, increasing its hold on large parts of both Syria and Iraq. The extreme  views and violent tactics of ISIS have become more of a concern to the international community, leading many countries to be dragged into a U.S led coalition to fight extremism from the air. This conflict in Syria and the instability in Iraq has spread from a mostly regional issue to an international concern. Europe at present is witnessing the fallout of such a spread of violent conflicts, with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria fleeing to the continent.

In the last week or so, many world leaders or senior foreign advisers have come out and stated that for any future peace in Syria, will require the international community to negotiate with Assad. The possibility of a transitional government with Assad as part of it has been considered for any future peace in Syria. I think in the reality of the present situation in Syria, dropping the opposition to Assad by much of the international community would be wise for future peace and stability. Assad seems to be in a strong position, especially with Russian forces inside Syria, and he has shown that although the west are against him, he still has enough allies in Russia and Iran to hold on to power. It’s hard to predict in what capacity Assad would contain in any future transitional government. Course you would think that Russia and Iran would want Assad and this regime to contain much of the control and decision making positions. On the other hand, the true Syrian opposition forces and the west would want Assad and his government to maintain a limited position. Thus, any future negotiations would require a delicate balance, which would legitamise the concerns of the majority Sunni population, as well protect the many minority groups, including the Alawite’s. The next few months will be decisive on how the Syrian’s achieve with assistance from the international community a path of long term peace and stability.