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.

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 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’s Nuclear Standoff

Image source: WikiCommons

Iran’s Nuclear stand off with the rest of the world has become a unending saga, with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announcing that Iran have installed advanced centrifuge machines, capable of enriching uranium much faster then in the past. 

Apart from this new report released by the IAEA, talks between Iran and the P5+1 (US, UK, French, Russia, China and Germany), has been planned to take place this week in Kazakhstan. Western diplomats have suggested that they will offer Iran reworked terms to settle the Nuclear crises, this will include easing some sanctions, in return for Iran closing some facilities, but still allow enrichment to continue in other facilities. 

This new deal is a step back from past negotiations, which the P5+1 demanded a halt of all enrichments and closing down of the Qom facility. Western powers seem to be viewing the present situation in more realistic terms, as Iran, after years of failed sanctions are not prepared to bow down to pressure by the international community and stop all uranium enrichment , and many states including the US are unwilling to be drawn into another conflict, likely to be a disaster and further destabilise the region.

Image source: WikiCommons

As we all know, Iran and western countries, specifically the United States (US), have been at  loggerheads over Iran’s nuclear ambitions for over ten years. The international community and the IAEA have been alarmed by Iran’s nuclear program, claiming that they are not just enriching uranium for peaceful means, to be used for energy, but are expanding their research and technology to build a nuclear device in the near future. The Iranian leaders have rejected this claim on many occasions, saying that they do not want to build a nuclear weapon, but just want enrich uranium for energy purposes only. Even Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has issued a ‘fatwa’ condemning nuclear weapons in the past.

The issue that the United Nations Security Council and the IAEA has with Iran’s program, is the fact that they will not fully comply with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), by not cooperating with inspectors and lying about their ambitions to acquire weapons grade uranium.

Under the treaty, signatory nations are allowed to enrich uranium to be used for energy purposes, however the technology required producing fuel for a reactor can also create material for a nuclear weapon. To overcome the use of this technology been used to produce a nuclear device, the IAEA inspects the facilities that are producing nuclear fuel, making sure it is for peaceful purposes. However, Iran has not cooperated fully on allowing inspectors into their facilities to confirm that what Iran labels as peaceful production of nuclear energy.

I think that Iran is playing a risky game of ‘Russian Roulette with the international community by not cooperating with the IAEA and not abiding by the NPT. If they are true to their word, they should allow inspectors to fully monitor their program or withdraw from the treaty; although, if Iran did leave the NPT they would likely be viewed as having ambitions to build a nuclear weapon and be a threat to international security. The current situation is two fold, on the one hand, Iran are threatened by the US and Israel, thus are secretly trying to acquire a nuclear weapons, on the other, the US and Israel are alarmed with the a prospect of a nuclear armed Iran, who’s leaders have called for the destruction of Israel and have supported the activities of a number of organizations. 

To solve these problems, Iran should suspend their ambitions to secretly build a nuclear capability and cooperate with the IAEA, and the US and Israel should stop threatening to attack BlogThis!