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.         

The Politicised Winter Olympics Between North and South Korea

The next instalment of the Winter Olympics has begun in Pyeongchang, South Korea. The next two and a half weeks will be dedicated to bring people from across the world together to watch or compete in winter sports on the world stage, but politics has overshadowed the pre-Olympic hype.

This major sporting event, held every four years, along with the summer Olympics is supposed to promote world peace and togetherness, but international political issues have on occasions taken a more central stage. This upcoming winter games in South Korea is no exception. The political tensions between South and North Korea has stolen much of the headlines over the last few months.

Here is a short summary of what has happened before the start of the games in Pyeongchang. A year ago, there where questions about if North Korea would participate in the Olympics in South Korea, who are sworn enemies. But after an official meeting in January between the two countries in more than two years, North Korea agreed to send a delegation of athletes, cheerleaders, and senior officials to the Olympics. The surprise inclusion in the delegation is the attendance of the formal head of state, Kim Yong-nam and Kim Yo-jong, North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un’s sister.

The news of Kim Yo-jong attendance will mark an historic moment in the long standing tensions between the two Koreas, with the first visit of a direct descendant from the Kim dynasty to South Korea since the Korean war. Kim Yo-jong has met with the South Korean President Moon Jae-in, and has delivered an invitation for President Moon to meet with Kim Jong-un in the future.

This historic visit has been welcomed by the South Korean government as a sign of good will and thawing of relations between the two Koreas, but has also further politicised the event. Sending of such a high profile senior figure as Kim Yo-jong, who is a deputy director of the Workers' Party of Korea's Propaganda and Agitation Department (PAD), may just be for propaganda purposes aimed at overshadowing the games, rather than showing a willingness to  participate in future meetings between the two countries. Over the last few years Kim Jong-un has advanced his nuclear and missile program in face of global condemnation and sanctions, and has shown no signs of willingness to negotiate with South Korea or the international community, so this sudden race to show good will for its neighbour and the Olympics seems like a strategy to overtake the headlines and use it as both for internal and external propaganda. Along with such a high ranked delegation, the Kim regime moved the annual  military parade usually held in April to the eve of the games, further leading speculation of a propaganda ploy by North Korea. 

On top of the actions of the Kim regime, the Trump administration has send a delegation, led by Vice President Mike Pence, who has criticised Pyongyang of hijacking the game’s for its own purposes. Along with recent statements from the U.S Vice President and past criticisms from President Trump against Kim Jong-un’s regime, tensions and possible conflict have risen.

Although Kim Jong-un and the Trump administration have politicised these Olympics, the news of a senior political delegation from North Korea could possibly be a welcomed boost in restarting dialogue and future negotiations between North and South Korea and the international community. Even if Kim Jong-un is playing games by sending such a high profile delegation and holding a military parade on the eve of the games, the long term outcome of such a move could be a sign of holding out an olive branch to the South and the international community. The South Korean government and the Trump administration should  open up and welcome such senior figures of the regime to the Olympics and, should use this opportunity to reproach Kim Jong-un with the aim of future dialogue and peace negotiations. The best way to lower tensions on the Korean peninsula is open dialogue, not threats of military strikes and economic sanctions.

The Agreement over Iran’s Nuclear Program is a Good Place to Start

Last week Iran signed a deal with the international community, which will see them halt some of their nuclear program for six months, in return for over $7 billion of sanction relief. The plan is that this short term agreement will lead to a more permanent deal over Iran’s nuclear program. For more then three years, western powers have placed sanction on Iran, as they suspected that the program was for building nuclear grade weapons and not for peaceful means, as been stated by Iran’s officials. 

This deal, although not perfect has allowed for a more open dialogue in a long standing stalemate between Iran and the international community. The agreement also will allow more inspections on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) during this six month period. Hopefully if Iran does keep its word, which I think they will, the country and its people will benefit greatly from increased investment and status in the world.

Since the signing of the agreement last week, many politicians in both Israel and the United States have been skeptical of such a deal, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said, “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.” And US Republicans and some Democrats are concerned that the deal has not remove Iran’s nuclear capacity.

I understand the concerns of what has been labeled a soft agreement by many, but in reality, the deal is better then further stalemate. In the end, nothing would be able to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability, other then military force, which in light of the current situation in Syria and other parts of the region, a military option would be unwise. Even President Obama seemed reluctant to go down that path. So a deal although soft in content, will hopefully lead to more future transparency by Iran on the issue of their nuclear program, and with such a big step for the conservative Clerics to agree to this deal in the first place, the signs seem good for a more permanent deal that will satisfy both Iran’s ambitions and the international communities concerns. And you never know this may bring better relations between the US and Iran.  

Iran Turning To A More Transparent Nuclear Plan

If the words of Hassan Rouhani, the newly elected Iranian President are true, the nuclear standoff between Iran and the international community looks to be turning a corner. Over the weekend, Rouhani announced at a post election press conference, that Iran needs to be more transparent with its nuclear program.  

Rouhani is seen as a moderate leader than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who became a thorn to the international community’s actions to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While Rouhani stated that Iran will come to the negotiation table with the international community to solve the nuclear issue, he also said that Iran will not stop uranium enrichment, as the program is within the rules of the international framework.    

This re-engagement by President Rouhani is welcoming, that’s if the words will translate into actions. Although the international community cannot relax sanction or pressure on Iran just yet, until there are concrete efforts by the new government to convince that their nuclear program is for peaceful means only. I think to progress the stated willingness by President Rouhani, is for the 5+1 group (UNSC permanent five and Germany), to openly welcome a turning point in the relationship between Iran and the international community. 

The only resolution I can see of this issue, is not through military action (which has been the argument of Israel) but for peaceful negotiations, which will have to include the reality that Iran is entitled to a peaceful nuclear program. On Iran’s part, the stated transparency will hopefully consist of allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to monitor the program. I do think this crisis can be resolved with more open dialogue from both Iran and the international community. And let’s hope for the people of Iran and the rest of the world, that this stand-off can be resolved soon, as we do not want another unnecessary conflict in an already volatile region.