“Anyone can make war but only the most courageous can make peace”
Donald J. Trump
North Korean-United States summit, June 12th 2018
The summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un in Singapore brought together two polarising and unpredictable figures. When Kim Jong-il died in 2011, it would have been unimaginable that this would have been a reality. Even last year, when Trump addressed the UN General Assembly about the danger of the “rocket man,” a meeting seemed far from feasible. Whilst comprehensive peace is far from certain, the dialogue exchanged denotes a thawing of relations and the need for the Kim Dynasty to bring North Korea out of isolation. Yet, we must remain pragmatic and not be blinded by optimism.
In his first year in office, Trump offered us insight into the decisiveness of American foreign policy under his administration – America First. Many politicians and academics have berated the businessman turned president for his approach to international relations, with his demeanour and interests being somewhat unconventional in professional politics. But it must be realised that Trump is an anomaly – a man who had never been elected to office but was suddenly bolstered to the most powerful position in the western world. This unorthodox behaviour was evident when Trump called out leaders over trade at the G7. While it may seem shocking, a re-examination of the status quo may be required in key aspects of foreign affairs. This is the motive Trump may have taken to North Korea – an unconventional politician seeking to tackle issues which many other officials have believed is now the norm.
The summit can also be compared to similar events of the past. This evokes images of past meetings between adversaries such as the Chamberlain-Hitler meeting in 1938. Whilst it involved the meeting of two adversaries, this, and other scenarios, are distinguishable. Trump was not legitimising any form of territorial annexation, nor was he seeking to reach an immediate peace. This was a meeting for two leaders to establish a working relationship. Nothing substantial was expected, especially to the same degree of the Munich Agreement 80 years prior.
Regardless, the meeting resulted in the signing of a joint statement which highlights the commitments of each nation moving forward in their relations. Whilst optimistic in what they seek to achieve, this statement is far from perfect. Contrary to President Trump’s claims that this is a “comprehensive” agreement, the text lacks certainty regarding targets and is ambiguous. The key concern regards the third commitment:
“Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”
Joint Statement
North Korean-United States summit, June 12th 2018
This is merely a restatement of the previous agreement the DPRK reached with South Korea at the Inter-Korean summit. This is no major achievement from the Trump-Kim summit besides Kim reconfirming his commitment to denuclearise. But did the summit clarify the commitment? Since the Panmunjom Declaration, there have been no major updates regarding denuclearisation, specifically the lack of a timeline. This remains a contentious point between all parties involved, including South Korea and China. During his meetings with his South Korean and Japanese counterparts, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo noted his desire for this to be accomplished by 2020. Yet, this seems very difficult to accomplish. Is this based on pragmatic reasoning? Or was it determined on the fact that Trump will likely seek re-election in 2020?
“What the U.S. has gained is vague and unverifiable at best. What North Korea has gained, however, is tangible and lasting. … We’ve legitimized a brutal dictator who’s starved his own people.”
Chuck Schumer, Minority Senate Leader
Remarks to the U.S. Senate, June 12th 2018
The summit has also been vehemently criticised by Democrats for legitimising Kim and not holding him or his officials to account for human rights violations and past hostilities. Even Republicans are cautious of any outcomes related to the meeting. Immediately after the signing of the deal, it was reported that Vice President Mike Pence countermanded his Commander-In-Chief by stating war games in the Korean Peninsula would not end. Republican senators such as Bob Corker, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, also want to vote on any deal. Although such internal party divisions may be rooted in the troublesome relationship the GOP has with the unconventional Trump, especially in this mid-term election year, it also emphasises the need for a pragmatic approach in these unprecedented circumstances.
Although there are issues surrounding the Trump-Kim summit, including human rights violations in the Hermit Kingdom, the meeting was a positive step forward. Past experiences such as the meeting in Munich between Chamberlain and Hitler highlight the difficulty in reaching a perpetual peace, if such a thing exists. However, by opening dialogue, Trump and Kim have demonstrated the possibility of the foes moving closer together. As this may seem idealistic and may instead be rooted in self-interest, we should still remain pragmatic and see what happens next.
