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. 

Yet Another Turning Point For The Conflict In Syria

Last week a leaked memo by 51 officials at the State Department in the United States, concerning current policies of the U.S government, has spurred increasing debate over the conflict in Syria. Some U.S based newspapers claim to have viewed this leaked document and have released snippets of what was outlined by the mainly mid-level staff in the Department.

Much of what was outlined stated a critical view of President Obama’s reluctance to step up intervention into ending the conflict. The memo which was lodged through a system called the ‘Dissent Channel,’ which allows State Department staff to offer their views to senior government officials including the President and Secretary of State. They have called for the President to consider using the threat of military force to persuade Bashar al-Assad to adhere to his government's responsibilities under the  Cessation of Hostilities (CoH) agreement, signed by Assad,opposition groups, U.S, Russia and others in February, all agreeing to holt the violence and negotiate a ‘road map’ to peace, as decided in the United Nations last December.

With the conflict in Syria raging for over 6 years, with over 400,000 killed and producing millions of external and internal refugees, the memo comes at a critical juncture for the international community and the Assad regime. In the first couple of months since the CoH, the violence decreased, but over the last few months Assad’s backed forces have continued indiscriminate bombings of cities and towns, killing large numbers of civilians.

As part of the CoH, the delivery of humanitarian supplies to places like Aleppo and others have become a necessity for the tens of thousands trapped by the fighting. On numerous occasions, the UN has persuaded the Syrian Regime to allow humanitarian relief to be sent to affected areas, only for Syrian and Russian forces to bomb those locations soon after the trucks had left.

As this conflict has become very complicated with so many different groups involved, full scale military  intervention by the U.S and its allies in forcing the removal of Assad and his regime would likely further destabilise Syria and the region, but as the situation stands, a more forceful stance against Assad is required. I agree with the authors of the memo, that a threat of military intervention should be an option for the U.S President, as clearly Assad and his regime are unwilling to stop the indiscriminate bombings of civilian areas or seriously willing to negotiate with opposition groups. Assad with military and diplomatic support from Russia is in a situation that without the threat of punishment, he calculates that his forces can commit these acts of violence without repercussion, but this must end now.  

The U.S and its western allies have been seen as weak when it comes to the conflict in Syria, and have been reluctant to stand up to Russia, who have been pulling the strings over the last few years. Although there might not be much material interest for a more assertive U.S policy in Syria, but a continued destabilising conflict in the Middle East is increasing the threat of international terrorism and effecting allied countries in the region, and also don’t forget the affects on the Syrian people. The soft power and diplomatic policy of the Obama administration has done well to bring Assad and the opposition to start negotiations over the future of Syria, but these have since stalled, as the violence continues in opposition held areas. The diplomatic road is on the verge of collapse, especially when Assad vows that his forces will reclaim every inch of Syria. This does not spell out any desire for a peaceful settlement by Assad, so perhaps a threat of military force by the U.S and its western allies may be required, even if this affects relations with Russia.  

Will peace finally come through Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

Finally, after almost three years of stalemate over resuming talks over the peace process in the Middle East,both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have decided that over the next nine months both sides will aim for a “final status” agreement (a final plan to bring peace).

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, who has been mediating with both sides over the last few months, said "the two sides have agreed that all the final status issues, core issues, are all on the table for negotiation.” The thorniest of these are overcoming the status of Jerusalem, where the Palestinians want the Eastern part of the city to become their new Capital under a two state solution, but Israel have long argued that they are unwilling to divide the city. Also, the problem of drawing up a border to accommodate a Palestinian state, and the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are major concerns for the negotiations. .As there are many core issues that will make the next nine months difficult for both sides to agree to a negotiated peace, but after decades of violence and mistrust, a final solution needs to be found.

I am no expert on the issue, but from what I have read and understood, there needs to be an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and if both Hamas and Fatah can agree to unite, the Gaza strip as well. Only two separate states will bring peace to the region, as history has shown there is too much animosity between both sides for them to co-exist in the same country.

As for the issue of Jerusalem, Israel will need to agree to a divided city, where by any new Palestinian state would have East Jerusalem as its capital and the rest staying a part of Israel. The Palestinians would probably not agree to any peace plan that does not involve their new capital been East Jerusalem, as two holy Islamic buildings, the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque are located there.  

Another major problem will be the drawing up of a border of a new Palestinian state, and incorporated in this is the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I think to overcome this issue, two situation will need to happen, firstly, Israel will have to halt all new construction of settlements, and secondly, for both sides to agree to land swaps. This could be difficult for Israel, as many right-wing coalition members in the government and settlers are unwilling to budge from their stance on not leaving the settlements, but for any peace deal to aspire this will have to happen.

I hope for future peace and stability in the region that these negotiations will not end like the Oslo Accords, where instead of agreement, there was mistrust on both sides, leading to a failed deal and more violence. This time the issues need to be resolved, because if not, the problems faced by both Israeli’s and Palestinians will become even deeper.

For short summary of some of the core issues of the conflict mentioned in this post visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11138790  

Will the U.S Secretary of State Restart the Middle East Peace Process?

(Image source: WikiCommons | Credit to: US Department of State)
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry holds a meeting with the Arab League delegation, led by Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al-Thani, at the Blair House in Washington, D.C., on April 29, 2013.

The United States Secretary of State, John Kerry has held a meeting this week with Arab League members, to discuss the restarting of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. 

Ever since the Israeli nation was formed in 1948, there has been on and off conflict between the Jewish state and the people of Palestine, leading to a number of major wars which have dragged other Arab nations into the dispute. Much of the issues concerning the conflict are on matters of religious differences, as Israel is Jewish and the Palestinians are Muslim. Also, land and natural resources have played a major part in fueling the distrust of both sides. Israel are unwilling to give up land that was taken away from the Palestinians in the 1967 war, arguing security concerns, and elements within the power circles of the Palestinian  community, want all of the Jewish lands returned to the Muslim peoples.  

The international communities, and more specifically the U.S, have over the last few decades been the third wheel in the process to bring peace to the unstable region. The last major attempt to bring long lasting peace was back in the late 1990’s, under the Oslo Accord, when President Bill Clinton almost negotiated an agreeable road map between the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman  Yasar Arafat and the then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, however, many of the Accords principles, including ‘two state’ solution have not full progressed. Although, a Palestinian Authority (PA) was formed to allow the Palestinians limited self governance, many of the issues discussed in the Accords are still to be fully implemented.

Since the Oslo Accords no major attempts to bring an agreed solution to the conflict have aspired, as the U.S have concentrated their resources fighting the decade long ‘war on terror,’ and both Israel and the Palestinians have failed to overcome many domestic issues, which have stalled the peace process.

The attempt this week by John Kerry to meet with foreign ministers from Arab nations in the region, seems to me, emphasises the importance that these Arab states have in bringing both Israel and especially the divided Palestinians to restart concrete negotiations on a workable solution. I think this is a good first step by the new US Secretary of State to consult with regional leaders, rather than going straight to the Palestinians or Israelis. What needs to happen after this weeks meeting, is for Arab states to work in partnership with the US on bring both Hamas and Fatah to agree on working together to negotiate peace. If this situation can aspire, where both Hamas and Fatah can share governance over Gaza and the West Bank, Israel is more likely going to agree to negotiate a solution for peace.