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.         

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 International Community Still Failing to Protect After Srebrenica

There was slight justice and humanity on the 22nd of November 2017, when Ratko Mladić was sentenced to life in prison by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). If you are not sure who Mladić is, he was the Chief of Staff of the Bosnian Serb forces during the time of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, where 8,000 Muslim men and boys were killed by Bosnian Serb troops, and the four year siege of the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo.

Mladić was indicted by the ICTY in 1996, but was only captured in 2011 and transferred to the Hague. After a long four year trial, he was found guilty of 10 out of 11 charges, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Along with the conviction of the former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić in 2016, who was sentenced to 40 years imprisonment, some form of justice for the victims families and the Bosnian nation has been found. It has been over 20 years since the Srebrenica massacre and the siege of Sarajevo, but these two verdicts placed on two of the most senior figures in the genocide will be welcomed, but the underlying effect of preventing future or halting present acts of genocide and crimes against humanity still seem beyond the international community.

The atrocities committed by all sides during the wars in the former Yugoslavia, along with the Rwandan genocide, just to mention a few, are still felt today, with genocide and crimes against humanity still occurring in the 21st century. In the years preceding the Bosnian war and the Rwandan genocide, the international community declared “never again.” Over two decades since these atrocities, genocide and crimes against humanity are still been committed in Syria, Myanmar and in many other countries.

Myanmar as a point in case, where thousands of Rohingya Muslims have been killed and hundreds of thousands fleeing to escape the bloody hands of the Myanmar military. The situation in Myanmar has been occurring for decades, with the international community basically sitting on its hands, unwilling to intervene and stop the ongoing ethnic cleansing. A fear that too much pressure on the Myanmar military or civilian government led by Aung San Suu Kyi, would be counter productive in democratising a former military ruled country. But allowing the military to conduct indiscriminate attacks on Rohingya Muslims may also be counter productive in bring peace and human rights to a country which has suffered decades of violence and abuse in the hands of the military.   

As for Syria, the ongoing conflict over the past six years has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, with millions fleeing the violence, and a nation in ruin. This civil conflict could have possibly been prevented from escalating, if not for a lack of consensus and individual national interests of major international and regional powers. All sides to the conflict have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, though Bashar Al Assad’s forces have committed some of the most horrific  atrocities, when deploying chemical weapons on his own people. It will be seen if Assad and others are ever brought to trial in the Hague. Somehow this seems unlikely.   

Holding perpetrators to account decades after such atrocities brings a sense of justice for the victims families and humanity in general, but there needs to be more emphases in finding greater political will and consensus, especially at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), to prevent and to intervene in cases of occurring genocide and other acts of atrocities.

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.