

'What specific concessions do they want from us and the South, and are they worth it?'


South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un signed an agreement on Wednesday that both said would usher in a new era of peace. Kim agreed to permanently dismantle his main nuclear complex.

Does Trump have a strategy ready? Unclear

South and North Korean leaders Moon Jae-in and Kim Jong Un on Wednesday pledged an era of "no war" on their peninsula. The announcement, which will see the Dongchang-ri missile engine test site and the Yongbyon nuclear site closed down, puts the ball in the Trump team’s court as it is based on Washington taking reciprocal measures.

The North is therefore now calling — beyond the halting of joint Washington-Seoul military exercises — for the United States to create situations on the ground in the peninsula where Pyongyang would feel "the decision to denuclearize was a right move."

One big move Kim appears to be angling for is President Donald Trump giving his support for formally ending the 1950-53 Korean War. On the face of it, this seems a simple (albeit very symbolic) step, but U.S. officials and conservatives in South Korea are concerned this would weaken the Washington-Seoul alliance and remove the rationale for the almost 28,000 U.S. forces stationed on the peninsula.

While there is remaining resistance in Washington to this, both Seoul and Pyongyang were encouraged by Trump's response to Kim's recent letter to him, which the president declared "said some terrific things about me." Trump's self-absorbed reaction underlines that a second meeting with Kim remains a significant possibility.

More on Trump's foreign policy: From Iran to North Korea, Trump is fixing the world

Related talker: Don't trust Benjamin Netanyahu on claims about Iran's nuclear program

Despite Trump’s remaining investment in the talks, there is growing White House frustration with Pyongyang. National security adviser John Bolton has said that he is still waiting for significant unilateral action from Pyongyang, including a denuclearization plan and not more "rhetoric."

What this underlines is the significant expectation gap that emerged out of June’s Singapore summit. That session was no more than a start to a sustained strategic dialogue, despite the hype.

Trump, for instance, declared: "There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea." And one might have been forgiven for thinking that he had already completed the immensely complicated process of de-escalating tensions in the world’s last Cold War-era frontier.

Even today, however, it is still not clear that Trump has a comprehensive, clear or coherent strategy toward the Korean Peninsula, which continues to contain much complexity for the president around U.S. alliances and the non-proliferation regime, not to mention what exactly would constitute "denuclearization" on the peninsula.

As Steve Biegun, the new U.S. special representative to North Korea, begins his role, a wider breakthrough is still possible, which could see Korea eventually becoming a central part of Trump's foreign policy legacy. Yet unless the president's team raises its game, it is as likely to emulate others who have failed to bring a sustained, peaceful diplomatic outcome to one of the key foreign challenges facing Washington.

Andrew Hammond is an associate at the IDEAS foreign policy think tank at the London School of Economics and Political Science. 

What others are saying

Scott Snyder,  NPR: "The South Korean President Moon Jae-in administration's eagerness to reopen economic exchange with North Korea risks opening a rift between Washington and Seoul. Moon envisions economic cooperation with Pyongyang as a solution to South Korean economic woes, even as the United States continues to emphasize sanctions enforcement as the primary lever by which to pressure North Korea into denuclearizing."

Tom Rogan,  Washington Examiner: "Moon has evidently decided that it is better to keep Kim happy, even if that choice leads to Kim's ever increased threat to the U.S. It's zero-sum realism. Of course, the U.S. cannot accept this South Korean strategy. To do so would be to endorse a North Korea that is both armed with a credible nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile strike capability and with the benefits of an economic opening to the world. Regardless of what that would mean for South Korea (and I would suggest it would be far worse for Moon than he assumes), it would pose an utterly unacceptable threat to America. Trump should thus make clear to Moon that while he welcomes his friendship with Kim, any decisions flowing from that relationship will not bind the U.S."

What our readers are saying

Well, it's starting to look like a strong possibility of peace. If South Korea can get us back at the table and we can get something concrete this time, we might just pull it off together. That being said, the U.S. will need to make concessions of its own to get anywhere, so who knows with this administration.

— Matthew Farmer

In terms of a nuclear deal, this is nowhere near as good as the Iran deal. Kim Jong Un does not agree to denuclearization without more concessions.

What are President Donald Trump's supporters celebrating? Trump did not demand peace in Korea; he demanded total denuclearization.

He made a big point in backing out of a deal with Iran. No celebrating halfway points. We demand full nuclear dismantling! Nothing less will do.

— Sandra Brown

We need to analyze this deal to the fullest. What specific concessions do they want from us and the South, and are they worth it? I would always err on the side of caution when dealing with a historically duplicitous regime like North Korea.

— Mark Smith


Read or Share this story: