Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent visit to Pyongyang, and North Korea’s announcement of tests of new missiles have raised alarms in Washington, rattled the US’ allies and threaten to destabilize the Indo-Pacific region. While this certainly is not the first time that tensions have escalated, the turmoil can be traced back to the actions of one man: former US president Donald Trump.
During his presidency, Trump’s attempts at diplomacy were often viewed as ill-informed and dangerous, especially when he and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un exchanged nuclear threats in 2017. Yet, Trump and Kim, who met for two summits in 2018 and 2019, actually made significant progress toward resolving the decades-long conflict between their two countries — until Trump’s impulsiveness derailed the efforts and set the stage for escalation.
Seeing a chance to shine on the international stage and win a Nobel Peace Prize like former US president Barack Obama, Trump pushed for a summit with Kim.
This also reflected a stark reality. In their first and only meeting after Trump’s election, Obama said that North Korea was on the verge of acquiring missiles and bombs capable of killing millions of Americans. Obama also told Trump that the US might have to launch a pre-emptive strike to prevent this scenario.
Trump’s offer to meet Kim was a dream come true for North Korea, signifying its acceptance on the world stage. Kim, like his father and grandfather, sought to modernize the country’s underdeveloped economy.
Ending the cold war with the US, which would have enabled North Korea to transfer resources from defense to the civilian economy, was crucial to this process. To achieve this, Kim was even willing to put his nuclear weapons program on the chopping block.
Even as they were issuing public threats, Trump and Kim were secretly angling for a summit. Immediately after Trump took office, the North Koreans reached out to the US Department of State, signaling Kim’s desire to meet the new US president. During secret talks in Singapore, North Korean spies reportedly asked their CIA counterparts whether Trump was serious about meeting Kim.
Although the Trump administration’s official policy was to force the North Koreans to come to the negotiating table, the president liked the idea of a “leader-to-leader” summit. In December 2017, he even provided a UN envoy with a message for Kim, proposing a meeting.
Whether Trump knew it or not, engaging directly with Kim was the only way to stop North Korea from amassing more weapons of mass destruction. While observers were dismissive of these efforts, Kim’s unilateral decision to halt missile and nuclear-weapons tests and start dismantling test sites showed he was serious.
Notably, Kim also announced a major economic modernization program, indicating his expectation that the US-North Korea conflict would soon end.
However, ending decades of hostility cannot be achieved in a few hours, and the first Trump-Kim summit in June 2018 in Singapore fell far short of such unrealistic expectations.
Trump himself seemed to realize this, telling his aides that it was a “process” that might require several summits.
He was right. While Trump was criticized for being unprepared for his second meeting with Kim in Hanoi in February 2019, the summit was preceded by intense negotiations between then-US special representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun and his North Korean counterparts.
Former US officials said that the talks produced a lengthy document that addressed nearly every issue the two countries had struggled with, leaving two major questions for Trump and Kim to resolve: How much of North Korea’s nuclear program would be dismantled immediately and how many sanctions the US would lift in return.
Trump and Kim came close to resolving these issues, but Kim’s demands exceeded what Trump was willing to offer. The two haggled until Trump, who is known for his impatience, abruptly decided to cut the summit short.
Regrettably, Trump’s impulsive decision came just as the negotiations were gaining momentum.
After the formal talks had ended, a top Kim adviser approached Biegun with a new, promising proposal. The two seemed to be making progress as Trump walked by, shook Kim’s hand and left, despite Kim’s request that he stay a few more hours. The US delegation had no choice but to follow Trump, and a stunned Kim returned to Pyongyang empty-handed.
At the time, many experts believed that the summit failed because Kim was not willing to give up his stockpile of nuclear weapons. Some thought that then-US national security adviser John Bolton had sabotaged the talks, while others said that Trump was likely distracted by the congressional testimony of his former lawyer, Michael Cohen.
Yet the blame lies squarely with Trump himself. As former US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director Anthony Fauci said, Trump’s attention span is “a minus number.”
Trump himself might have had second thoughts about walking out of the Hanoi summit. As he left Vietnam, he reportedly called then-South Korean president Moon Jae-in and sought his advice, but Trump and Kim never reconnected.
This raises the question: What if Trump had reached a historic deal with Kim in Hanoi? It is probably safe to say that the US and North Korea would have made significant — albeit slow — progress toward better relations. If they had, it is also likely that Kim would not have jeopardized his new relationship with the US by embracing Putin, nor would he be building an enormous weapons arsenal that threatens to annihilate US cities.
Alas, because of Trump’s rash decisions, no one will never know what could have been.
Joel S. Wit is a distinguished fellow in Northeast Asia security studies at the Henry L. Stimson Center.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS