Daily Times

Considering the near-hysteric and warlike tone of the exchanges between President Trump and the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, only a few months ago, it is difficult to reconcile the change of atmospherics,Starting with the Winter Olympics in South Korea with North Korea fielding a joint team, and leading to the summit between North Korea’s Kim Jong-un and President Moon Jae-in of South Korea. In the joint declaration issued by the two leaders, they virtually announced a state of peace between the two sides. It said, “The South and the North affirmed their mutual goal of realising a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula through complete denuclearisation.”

Furthermore, the declaration said that “the two leaders solemnly declared before the 80 million people of our nation [affirming Korea as one nation] and the entire world that there would be no more war on the Korean peninsula and a new age of peace has opened.”

And to give credence to his commitment to denuclearisation, Kim has said that he would invite the US experts and foreign journalists to witness the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear testing site. Kim acknowledged that the US had a deep mistrust of North Korea “but if it talks with us, it would soon realise that I’m not a person who would fire a nuke towards the Pacific Ocean or South Korea”, or for that matter the US.

In any case, according to Kim, North Korea won’t need nuclear weapons “if trust with the US is built and the end of the war and non-aggression are promised.” It might seem unbelievable in the light of what was said before, but Kim has changed his tune and Trump is welcoming it.

Mike Pompeo, the new US secretary of state, who travelled secretly to Pyongyang (before his confirmation in his new role) for talks with the North Korean leader, has said that they discussed complete denuclearisationand that Kim was prepared to “lay out a map that would help us achieve the objective.”

Basically, what North Korea is talking about is a phased and synchronised process, in return for security and economic guarantees. If denuclearisation were to proceed, it would be tied up with the end of armistice resulting in a peace treaty.

If it happens, there would be a need for the withdrawal of US troops from South Korea and the end of its security umbrella, including its nuclear cover. Pyongyang is hoping that by appealing to Trump’s ego and narcissism to claim credit for “denuclearising” the Korean peninsula, however half-baked and illusory it might be, it might lead to the withdrawal of the US troops from South Korea. And Trump seems to be encouraging it.

Trump’s America “first slogan” of populist nationalism and isolationism has in it the elements of walking away from long-held security/political commitments by declaring ‘victory’ of sorts over Pyongyang’s declaration of its commitment to denuclearisation. Whether or not the Korean situation will ever reach that level is difficult to envisage or predict, but Pyongyang would certainly be hoping for that kind of scenario.

Trump is already claiming full credit for hopeful developments in Korea, with some of his supporters even shouting that he is worthy of a Noble peace prize. And Kim is very skilfully using the South Korean President’s genuine commitment for peace in the Korean peninsula to his advantage.

To give credence to his commitment to denuclearisation, Kim has said that he would invite US experts and foreign journalists to witness the dismantling of North Korea’s nuclear testing site

There are a number of things involved in the peace process,and they are all interconnected. For instance, a peace treaty to formally end the war on the Korean peninsula will involve two things. First, since Pyongyang believes that the presence of US troops in South Korea, with all that involves in terms of periodic joint military exercises and the implied US nuclear cover, is a threat to its security; it would hope that the thawing of relations would lead to the progressive withdrawal of US military presence.

And considering that Trump is keen to reduce US military commitments in favour of its regional allies fending for their own security, he might not be averse to withdrawing US troops as part of the peace process.

Secondly, if Pyongyang were to offer some credible roadmap for denuclearisation, which will have to be verifiable and irreversible and with a strict inspection regime, that might make Trump’s task of disengaging from the military commitment that much easier.

It is interesting to note that, with his political and legal problems at home, Trump is always looking for a distraction and declaring to his political constituency that he is solving problems that none of his predecessors was able to do. And it is all part of his plan to make ‘America great again’, whether it is reducing its overseas military commitments, as in the Korean peninsula if and when it might happen, and fixing US trade deficits by imposing tariffs on its trade partners with large trade surpluses, as with China.

Where all this will lead or if it will lead anywhere remains to be seen. But Trump seems to be relishing all the uncertainty and unpredictability that it is creating.

The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia

Published in Daily Times, May 12^th 2018.