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.

Another Failed Ceasefire in Syria

It seems that another ceasefire in Syria is crumbling even before it could get off the ground.

At the start of the cessation of hostilities on the 12th August, hopes that this attempt at peace, even just for a short period could at least last for the seven days, as was its intention, but this has not been the case. In the last few days, tragic incidents of violations by all parties to the conflict has meant that the ceasefire has failed in its stated goals. The most recent violation – been the targeting of aid convoys on their way to delivering urgent supplies to civilians in Aleppo – has all but destroyed any chance of a ceasefire renewal.  

The aim of months of negotiations between the United States and Russia, was for a cessation of hostilities between Syrian armed forces and opposition groups – excluding so called Islamic-State and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham – for seven days. As part of the agreement, humanitarian aid was to  be allowed to be sent to ease the suffering of civilians in the besieged city of Aleppo, and other areas of Syria. If the violence ceased for seven days, and there was access for humanitarian aid, both the U.S and Russia agreed to coordinate joint strikes against ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.

When the agreement was announced, I was a little sceptical on the purpose of such a narrow and limited negotiated terms. Firstly, there seemed to be no plan for what would happen after the seven days, even if they were successful in their stated goals. I would assume that the U.S and Russia may both honour their agreed joint cooperation in targeting ISIS and other extremist groups – but what about Assad's siege of Aleppo – and his forces deliberately targeting civilians? Secondly, let's say humanitarian aid was sent to Aleppo, and other parts of Syria – but how long would lets say 20-30 trucks of food, water and medical supplies last – especially as Assad’s forces begin bombing again?  

As safe passage of humanitarian aid has not occurred and there has been violations of the ceasefire, the conflict looks likely to intensify over the next few days. I don’t think that the ceasefire will be renewed by either Assad or any of the opposition groups, especially as all sides have put blame on each other for its failure.

 

All that has seemed to occurred, is that mistrust between the U.S and Russia has deepened, especially since U.S-led forces accidentally bombed and killed 62 Syrian soldiers on Friday. This agreement was the first time in this conflict that both countries were planning to cooperate in joint action against jihadist groups in Syria. Although it would not resolve the main issue of ending the fighting between Assad and opposition parties, but at least it was a first step, that could lead to negotiations on the future governance of Syria.

Also, what the last week has signalled, is that  both these countries may not have as much influence over their respective groups they support, as we once thought. Russia has been unable to persuade Assad to allow access for humanitarian aid, a major point in the agreement. And as for the U.S, trying to make the more moderate opposition groups distance themselves from jihadist, seems difficult.

The question now is how can a new path towards peace be found in a conflict with so many complexities? The recent failed attempt towards peace, has only antagonised more mistrust between the U.S and Russia, and this will affect any future negotiations. What is required now is for both countries to renegotiate a new plan towards cooperation to jointly fight ISIS and other Jihadist groups, without unrealistic conditions. If U.S and Russian forces can fight together against ISIS – at least one element of the conflict could be resolved – perhaps leading towards a political solution in Syria. The main problem or sticking point in the conflict has been the jihadist fighters amongst more moderate groups, which has become a major concern for a lack of peace. Perhaps if extremist forces could be defeated or weakened, Assad might be willing, with persuasion from Russia, to reconsider his role in the future governance of Syria.   

The Republic of Congo is slowly gaining Peace and Stability

The Democratic Republic of the Congo, a landlocked country in central Africa is slowly gaining peace, after various civil conflicts over the last few decades. In the last couple of days the government of Congo signed a peace agreement with the M23 rebel group, after their defeat by government and United Nations forces in November. This agreement has formally disbanded the M23 as an armed force.

The M23 is just one of 30 or more different armed groups in Congo, but have been the most active in recent years. The M23 are mostly ethnic Tutsis, the same as the government in Rwanda, who have been accused of funding and supporting the group.

The issue in Congo is its large deposits of natural resources and over 200 different ethnic groups competing for power and claim to the countries riches. What has materialized since the countries independence from Belgium in the 1960’s has been numerous corrupt governments, warlords and outside interference that has led to armed conflict. Although most of the fighting ceased in the early 2000’s, there are still large numbers of groups fighting against the government and each other. Also fleeing Hutus from the 1994 Rwandan genocide have added to the problems in the Congo.  

The UN has deployed around 20,000peacekeepers since the late 1990’s in an effort to bring peace to the war torn country, but with so many different groups and interferences from outside, the task has been difficult, although there has been some successful achievements,and the latest peace agreement been one of them.

Although there are still many problems for the Congolese to deal with, including trying to bring long term peace, fighting corruption and bring about equality and development, the country has the potential to gain future peace and stability. The first elected government for over four decades in 2008 and the continuing presence of  a large UN deployment, which have been given a new mandate to use force to protect civilians, the long term goals could be achieved if the status que remains the same and further peace agreements can be signed between the government and other armed groups.