Following the success of the summit last week between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, hopes for a positive forthcoming planned meeting between Mr Kim and the American President Donald Trump are relatively high. This is more the remarkable because it is only a few short months since tensions were so high between the United States and North Korea that many felt that a war between the two was imminent.
At the summit last week, which was held in the demilitarised zone (DMZ) between the two Koreas, Mr Kim promised to work towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula – though many doubt that he has any intention of giving up North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities. This promise, however, was welcomed by everyone, including South Korea, China, Russia and the United States. The U.S. however continues to be cautious and insistent that any upcoming talks between Trump and Kim will only succeed if North Korea is genuine about their promise to denuclearise and, furthermore, it takes steps to ensure that the international community is able to ensure through inspections that they carry it through.
Today Donald Trump was on Twitter suggesting that his planned meeting with Kim Jong-un take place in the same location as last week’s summit – the so-called “Peace House” or “Freedom House” in the Korean DMZ. The President posted: “Numerous countries are being considered for the MEETING, but would Peace House/Freedom House, on the Border of North & South Korea, be a more Representative, Important and Lasting site than a third party country? Just asking!” For once, Mr Trump’s tweet and suggestion seems reasonable and considered. The date of the meeting has still to be announced, but it certainly seems more likely than ever to go ahead after the success of the meeting between Mr Kim and Mr Moon. President Trump, however, has himself expressed caution, arguing that he may walk away from a meeting – even if it has already begun – if it seems it is not going to succeed in the primary goal of denuclearisation of North Korea. In March the President said at a rally: “It’s going to be a very important meeting, the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula. But we’ll see how it goes. I may go in, it may not work out, I leave.”
It should be noted that Mr Trump’s notion of denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula may be different to that of Mr Kim. The North Korean leader is undoubtedly including the presence of U.S. military forces in South Korea in his calculations. Mr Kim may see their presence, and their ultimate access to America’s nuclear arsenal, as contributing to the nuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. Mr Trump, on the other hand, may have no time for talk if Mr Kim insists those troops are withdrawn. Mr Trump is certainly not going to agree to a withdrawal at least until it can be convinced the North no longer has a nuclear weapons capability, and that is something ultimately that Mr Kim may have no interest in achieving despite his promise last week, when he was reported to have said: “If we maintain frequent meetings and build trust with the United States and receive promises for an end to the war and a non-aggression treaty, then why would [we] need to live in difficulty by keeping our nuclear weapons?”
This desire, if it is a real by Mr Kim, to move his economy away from the massive cost of producing nuclear weapons towards domestic issues, could be a real positive way forward and can only be good for the suffering people of North Korea. However, many of Trump’s advisers remain deeply sceptical of Mr Kim’s promises and motives and of the hopes for a Trump-Kim meeting. Trump’s new National Security Adviser John Bolton spoke to CBS of how: “We want to see from them [North Korea] is evidence that it’s real and not just rhetoric.” Mr Bolton’s doubts about the North Korean regime’s trustworthiness has been reflected in the recent past, such as when he joked on Fox News that: “How do you know the North Korean regime is lying – answer, their lips are moving.” Mr Bolton has become more positive in recent weeks but is still on the hawkish side. He has pointed out that the U.S. has made no commitment to remove military forces from South Korea and warned: “There’s nobody in the Trump administration who’s starry-eyed about what happening here.”
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Mike Pomepo, who has met Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang at Easter when he was still CIA director (above), told ABC that the Trump administration would not be fooled by the North Koreans. He said: “We know the history, we know the risks. We’re going to negotiate in a different way than before, we’re going to require steps that demonstrate denuclearisation is going to be achieved. We’re not going to take promises or words, we are going to look for actions and deeds.” When Mr Pompeo met Mr Kim earlier this year, among other things, he said: “we talked about what a complete, irreversible mechanism [for nuclear denuclearisation] might look like.”
While hoping that a Trump-Kim meeting succeeds in the ultimate goal of a denuclearised Korean peninsula, it is worth nothing that such success would almost certainly guarantee Mr Trump, and possibly Mr Moon as well, the Nobel Peace Prize! This thought has not passed by people’s minds. At the Trump rally in March mentioned earlier in this post, Mr Trump’s words were greeted with chants of “Nobel! Nobel!” We have also had Moon Jae-in jumping the gun, when he told his cabinet that the American President should win the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to end the standoff in Korea. A presidential aide to Mr Moon told the media: “President Trump should win the Nobel Peace Prize. What we need is only peace.” Mr Moon has also previously stated that Trump “deserves big credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks. It could be a resulting work of the US-led sanctions and pressure.”
While conceding that Mr Trump and Mr Moon would deserve such acknowledgement if lasting peace is achieved between the two Koreas, it doesn’t bear thinking about Mr Trump’s response if he were to win the award. Mr Trump and his supporters would no doubt play on the fact that he would deserve the award as opposed to his predecessor Barack Obama who was given the award very early in his presidency in 2009 for imagined “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” Mr Obama had been nominated for the award just twelve days into his first administration and this led many to feel that Obama got this extraordinary honour more out of awe for his promise than for any concrete achievement so early is his first administration. Mr Trump’s already gigantic ego would inflate even further on receipt of the Peace Prize and his acceptance speech would undoubtedly make many people’s skin crawl. Giving Mr Trump the Nobel Peace Prize would also condone his often outrageous and frankly dangerous language towards North Korea and Kim Jong-un on Twitter and elsewhere. He and his supporters will argue that such language has brought North Korea to the table but it could so easily have escalated the tensions in Korea into full-scale war. Undoubtedly, the more measured and restrained pressure from Moon Jae-in and from the Chinese government and others on Mr Kim have had as much to do with bringing Mr Kim to the table than Mr Trump’s Twitter outbursts. However, give Mr Trump the Nobel Peace Prize and he will for sure claim all the credit.
Sources & Further Reading:
- Trump suggests meeting Kim Jong-un at Peace House on South Korea border – The Guardian – Monday 30 April 2018 – by Martin Pengelly and agencies
- North Korea must take ‘irreversible’ steps to denuclearization, US warns – The Guardian – Sunday 29 April 2018 – by Ed Pilkington in New York
- North Korea will invite outside experts to observe closing of nuclear test site – The Guardian – Sunday 29 April 2018 – by Benjamin Harris in Seoul
STEPHEN NULTY 