North Korea

Developments in conflicts across the world that you might have missed this week.

President Trump’s walk away from his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is being compared to President Reagan’s walk away from the 1986 Reykjavik summit with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev — a U.S. leader with the strength to say no deal and suffer the short-term political fallout of a failed summit, with the eventual outcome being historic progress in nuclear arms reductions. At Reykjavik, after intensive negotiations, Reagan walked away from the possibility of eliminating all U.S. and Soviet ballistic missiles and the consideration of the elimination of all nuclear weapons because the deal would have included constraints on strategic defense that he believed were not in the U.S. interests. Despite the widely held view that the summit was an abject failure, the relationship established between Gorbachev and Reagan during the summit set the U.S. and Russia on the path to eliminate their nuclear weapons stockpiles by over 80 percent in the intervening years. While the Reykjavik analogy is appealing on its surface, there are a number of differences between the two situations, including the fact that Kim is no Gorbachev, a leader who was committed to reform. The more troublesome and fitting historical analogy may be the dissolution of President Nixon’s historic realignment of U.S.-Soviet relations due to the corrosive impact of Watergate on his leadership domestically. Détente and Watergate were inextricably linked from the outset. The two major events unfolded and unraveled simultaneously, very similar to Trump’s North Korea summits and the Russia investigations. The Singapore summit came on the heels of the Manafort indictments and this latest summit in Hanoi was a split screen with the Michael Cohen hearings.  In 1972, Nixon flew home from his transformational summit in Moscow, with the first major Strategic Arms Limitation agreements in hand to triumphantly address a ioint session of Congress. Two weeks later, the Washington Post reported the Watergate break-in of the Democratic National Committee. By the time Nixon resigned more than two years later, détente with Russia was under siege from both liberals and conservatives in part, as Henry Kissinger noted, because Watergate erupted and weakened the presidency. As Kissinger observed in his memoires, “To maintain the dual track of firmness and conciliation required a disciplined Executive Branch and a Congress and public with confidence in their government; …Unfortunately the erosion of Nixon’s domestic base prevented us from fully implementing our strategy.”  Denuclearization of North Korea is a very difficult but necessary goal. As the president and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have stated, the outstanding challenges include, verification mechanisms, the definition of “denuclearization,” details on timing for sanctions relief, all challenges the U.S. has grappled with in previous negotiations made only more complicated by the major advancements made in North Korea’s missile and nuclear weapons program. It is clear from the president’s assessment of the outcome of the Hanoi summit that such negotiated achievements continue to remain out of reach. But, if Trump’s diplomacy is to be successful, the success of the agreement has another important hurdle, domestic support. The president will need to convince the Congress and the American public that the deal is a good one that will keep the U.S. safe and secure — not a politically convenient one, patch worked together to distract from his domestic problems. Walking away was the easier part of that strategy. It is much harder to make the case for a deal. As the history of previous North Korea agreements and the Iran deal demonstrate, to be sustainable, the agreement should be a treaty, which will require two-thirds support — therefore, bipartisan support — in the Senate. But whether the agreement is a treaty that requires Senate advice and consent or an executive agreement, which technically would not, it will still need congressional support.  Trump will need the Congress for sanctions relief, a central component of the negotiations. Furthermore, one of the biggest challenges that previous presidents faced in their efforts to stem the tide of North Korea’s nuclear ambitions was convincing the Congress to fund the economic carrots that were elements of previous deals with a brutal authoritarian regime that could not be trusted. Trump has been promising North Korean economic development as a quid pro quo for North Korean denuclearization and saying that this can happen quickly. While that would most certainly include international and regional support, it will also require support from both the House and the Senate for the U.S. contribution to that effort. Whether Trump will be able to provide the leadership domestically remains to be seen. But it is a hurdle that should not be dismissed or overlooked under the misleading glow of a Reagan at Reykjavik comparison.

Developments in conflicts across the world that you might have missed this week.

It is common for movie critics to say the sequel is not as good as the original. And many diplomatic critics will judge that the second installment of the Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un widescreen bromance fell short of expectations. Having failed to produce any agreement, the Hanoi summit did not even exceed the low bar set by the Singapore summit, which at least produced some common commitments and a specific deal on the return of the remains of American soldiers. But that does not mean the Hanoi summit cannot contribute to progress between the United States and North Korea.  Read more on Nikkei Asian Review.

The abrupt halt to talks in Hanoi between President Donald J. Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un has intensified criticism of the U.S. president’s diplomacy and its U.S. domestic implications. But there are larger regional ripples as well, and the interests of U.S. allies deserve closer scrutiny. While the failure in Hanoi to reach an agreement was a serious setback for Seoul, Japan’s immediate assessment was not terribly critical.   The initial media response in Tokyo largely reflected the U.S. reaction: was no deal better than a bad one? The answer was largely yes, and there were the inevitable questions about the diplomatic performance of the Trump administration. The government response was far more measured. Tokyo has always viewed the North Korea problem from a different vantage point. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has consistently advocated that President Trump not give in to relaxing sanctions imposed by the United Nations on North Korea (DPRK) for its nuclear and missile programs. The Japanese government has long worked with others in the United Nations to build a serious sanctions regime, and Abe worked hard to persuade the international community of the importance of unity in this effort.  Therefore, the announcement that the United States was not going compromise on sanctions must have been welcome news. Indeed, Abe, after a brief phone call with President Trump on his way home from Hanoi, announced his support for the president’s decision to end discussions over Pyongyang’s request for sanctions relief. Yet there are collateral concerns in Tokyo that will need to be considered in any future U.S.-DPRK negotiations. Three issues will shape Japanese thinking about their diplomacy going forward.  First, a negotiated denuclearization seems unlikely in the short term, and this conflicts with Tokyo’s strategic preferences. A bad outcome for Tokyo would be a deal that leaves North Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities largely in place, or even worse, acknowledges North Korea’s nuclear status. Here we should expect Japan to continue to admonish the United States and others in the most strenuous terms possible the consequences of a bad deal for U.S. extended deterrence in Asia.  Second, Japan more than any other regional power must be relieved to no longer be on the receiving end of North Korean missile launches. While there was no indication in the run-up to the Hanoi meeting that the United States and North Korea had agreed to diminish or eradicate Pyongyang’s missile production facilities, the freeze on missile and nuclear testing must be welcome in Tokyo. A moratorium on missile testing was central to Japan’s own diplomacy with Kim Jong-un’s father almost two decades ago, and will likely continue to be should Japan-DPRK talks ever begin. But a moratorium on testing does nothing to diminish Pyongyang's missile arsenal, including not only ICBMs but also medium- and short-range missiles that can threaten Japan. Finally, the most difficult outcome for Prime Minister Abe from the breakdown in Hanoi may not be about Japan’s security but rather about the accountability of the Kim regime on human rights. The fate of the Japanese citizens abducted by Pyongyang remains a highly sensitive issue for political leaders in Tokyo, none more so than Prime Minister Abe. Repeatedly, President Trump and others in his cabinet have publicly committed the United States to advocate on behalf of Japanese citizens in North Korea. And yet, the president’s willingness to absolve Kim of responsibility for the death of Otto Warmbier, the American student detained and brutally beaten while in North Korean custody, must have given Tokyo pause. If the U.S. president is not going to hold Kim responsible for the fate of his own citizens, it is unlikely that he will stand firm on behalf of Japanese. Immediately following the president’s press statement in Hanoi, Prime Minister Abe held a press briefing of his own in which he said that he must now pursue directly Japan’s interests on the abductees with Kim Jong-un.  The failure of talks in Hanoi may not be a complete setback for diplomacy. It is too early to tell how this might evolve. U.S. allies will want to ensure that the Trump administration continues to consult as next steps are considered. No one wants a return to the uncertainty and danger of 2017, to be sure. But equally worrisome in the wake of the Hanoi summit is the possibility that President Trump might lose interest in trying to solve the North Korea problem.

The diplomacy between President Trump and Kim Jong-un resonates with the American public, as shown in a recent poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Americans have long considered North Korea one of the top threats to national security, and the desire of Trump to talk largely aligns with the public preference for diplomacy over military conflict. But as Trump prepares for a second meeting with Kim, he should keep in mind that American support will hold only if he is able to reduce the North Korean threat while maintaining, rather than weakening or discarding, capabilities of the alliance between the United States and South Korea. Read more at The Hill.  

Test your knowledge of South Korea, from its thriving economy to its relations with the North.

In a matter of days, Donald J. Trump and Kim Jong-un will meet to build upon progress made in the June 2018 Singapore Declaration, in which both sides pledged to normalize relations, achieve peace, and work toward "complete denuclearization." The meeting follows growing momentum in inter-Korean relations, including three summit meetings between Moon Jae-in and Kim and initial steps designed to transform the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) into a peace zone. Meanwhile, the U.S. and South Korea have finally reached a deal in a contentious negotiation over burden sharing, concluding a one-year agreement in which South Korea pledged to increase its contribution by 8.2% over the prior year’s levels. The level of South Korean support for the U.S. military presence on the peninsula provides a useful proxy for understanding attitudes toward South Korean foreign policy and inter-Korean relations, in addition to serving as an important barometer of support for the U.S.-ROK alliance. The Asan Institute and Council on Foreign Relations conducted a joint survey of Korean attitudes in January 2019 (full results are available here) at a time of anticipation for a second U.S.-North Korea summit, dramatic initial steps toward inter-Korean tension reduction, and an impasse between the United States and South Korea over the level of South Korean financial support for USFK (U.S. Forces Korea). Major takeaways from the survey include the following: Despite dramatic steps toward reduction of conventional military tensions between the two Koreas around the Demilitarized Zone, there is still strong support across every cohort within Korean society for USFK as a reliable partner in assuring South Korea’s security. A majority of South Koreans believe that current USFK levels should be maintained for the time being. Two-thirds of South Koreans surveyed continue to believe that U.S. extended deterrence commitments are credible, and three out of five believe the continued USFK presence on the peninsula does not threaten peace negotiations with North Korea. South Korean support for continued USFK presence in the future has dropped by about 10% since the peak of military tensions in 2017. Though a majority of Koreans still believe USFK will be necessary for South Korea’s security in the future, the level of support for USFK decreases in the event of Korean unification. Prior to the conclusion of the cost sharing agreement, 45% of Koreans supported maintaining Korean contributions to USFK at current levels, while 28% believed contributions should increase and 17% said contributions should decrease.  A plurality of Koreans (40%) support implementation of the Moon administration's plans for Korea to assume the operational control of forces in wartime, while 30% oppose proceeding with the transfer. South Korean support for the U.S.-ROK alliance remains relatively strong for the time being. This is particularly striking in contrast to the drop in South Korean support for USFK that occurred in the early 2000s during a period of inter-Korean reconciliation. Today, Korean public views of tension reduction with North Korea remain cautious, and the USFK presence provides a useful hedge that enables experimentation with the confidence and security building measures contained in the Comprehensive Military Agreement (CMA). The widespread Korean perception that the U.S. force presence does not impede the peace-building process supports this view. Furthermore, the relationship between Trump and Moon has thus far remained more positive than the past U.S.-ROK relationship under progressive South Korean presidents and George W. Bush. Trump’s outreach to Kim Jong-un and his abandonment of the rhetoric of "fire and fury" has bolstered Trump’s popularity in South Korea. But his demand for a dramatic hike in South Korean financial support for USFK is at odds with the trend toward reduced inter-Korean tensions and could erode high levels of South Korean support for the U.S.-ROK alliance. Though levels of South Korean public support for USFK remain high, alliance mismanagement or a failure by the Trump administration to maintain close relations with the Korean public may lead to a long-term slippage of public support for the alliance and for the U.S. force presence on the Korean Peninsula. This post originally appeared on Forbes.

Despite both leaders’ desire to highlight their own achievements, the second summit’s outcome may be determined more by the ability of each side to respond to each other’s weaknesses than by the ability to project strength.

Developments in conflicts across the world that you might have missed this week.