Coin commemorating US-North Korea summit

What Sank the Kim-Trump Summit?

May 25, 2018 Ramesh Thakur

The abrupt cancellation of next month's planned meeting between the North Korean and US leaders should surprise no one. Developments in recent weeks exposed three factors that doomed the initiative to collapse.

CANBERRA – When US President Donald Trump abruptly canceled his summit with North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un, he blamed “tremendous anger and open hostility” from the North. In fact, the summit, scheduled for June 12 in Singapore, was doomed for three reasons.

First, the two sides mirrored each other’s misperception of the main motivation for the summit. Both thought the other had agreed to meet because of weakness and had made major concessions. Kim believed that his nuclear strength had forced Trump to the summit without preconditions, making him Trump’s equal as a head of state. He could afford to explore possible avenues for a peace regime, he thought, because North Korea’s nuclear sword provided immunity from US attacks.

But the Americans concluded that international sanctions had brought North Korea to its knees, leaving Kim desperate to conclude a deal on US terms. Part of the US strategy was to place additional pressure on China to rein in its client state or itself face tough financial penalties from Washington.

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Already have an account? Log in

Support High-Quality Commentary

For more than 25 years, Project Syndicate has been guided by a simple credo: All people deserve access to a broad range of views by the world's foremost leaders and thinkers on the issues, events, and forces shaping their lives. At a time of unprecedented uncertainty, that mission is more important than ever – and we remain committed to fulfilling it.

But there is no doubt that we, like so many other media organizations nowadays, are under growing strain. If you are in a position to support us, please subscribe now.

As a subscriber, you will enjoy unlimited access to our On Point suite of long reads and book reviews, Say More contributor interviews, The Year Ahead magazine, the full PS archive, and much more. You will also directly support our mission of delivering the highest-quality commentary on the world's most pressing issues to as wide an audience as possible.

By helping us to build a truly open world of ideas, every PS subscriber makes a real difference. Thank you.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 4 Comments on this article

j. von Hettlingen May 29, 2018

Ramesh Thakur says that Trump’s withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran will come back to haunt him in his potential negotiation with North Korea. Although Trump has reversed the cancellation of the June 12 summit with Kim Jong-un, one day after the announcement, little suggests that he will leave Singapore as the victor – succeeding where his predecessors had failed all these decades.
The author highlights how the “motivation” for this summit reflects the “misperception” of the two convening leaders. Kim assumes that North Korea’s ostensible strength as a nuclear power has led to Trump’s willingness to meet and he sees himself as Trump’s equal. Yet his American counterpart believes that the policy of “maximum pressure” on Pyongyang has worked. With North Korea’s economy on the verge of collapse, Trump assumes Kim is desperate “to conclude a deal on US terms.”
There is a chasm between the US and North Korea on the issue of denulearisation. Although South Korea’s president Moon Jae-in relaid the message after his second meeting with Kim last Saturday that North Korea would be committed to “complete denuclearisation,” he declined to define what Kim meant. His reluctance to elaborate suggested fundamental differences between North Korea and the US that need to be resolved.
The conservative opposition in Seoul has accused Moon of taking Pyongyang’s side and being an advocate of the North, while neglecting the US-South Korea alliance. They believe Moon must stand alongside Trump to take the lead in denuclearisation, a core issue they say Moon does not seem to be sufficiently focused on. Yet they have ignored the necessity to build trust on both sides, before Kim could have confidence in any US security guarantee.
Indeed, mutual trust can only be built over time, a wisdom that eludes Trump and his administration. The author cites the tragic death of Libya’s once strongman, Muammar Gaddafi, as a cautionary tale for anyone who deals with the US. John Bolton proposed the Libyan model of nuclearisation, while Mike Pence warned that Trump made clear, that North Korea could end like Libya, if Kim would not make a deal. No wonder Pyongyang was outraged and stood up the US delegation in Singapore.
No doubt Moon realises that Trump could resort to military action should he not receive a tangible response from Kim. He hopes that a diplomatic process based on “channels of clear, accurate communication,” would help reach “an agreement” to keep the North’s nuclear and missile programme “at current levels of capability.” He is realistic enough to comprehend that Kim will not give up his nuclear arsenal, which has been the fruit of decades long sacrifices.
Given the way Trump handles the nuclear deal with Iran, Kim has reason not to trust Trump, who has lost his credibility as a reliable and trustworthy player. That the US decided not to honour the agreement the Obama administration had concluded with Iran, sends an unsettling message to Kim, that any deal signed with Trump could be unravelled by his successor.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Parsons May 28, 2018

Since America has never stuck to any treaty it has signed, and because of its 'exceptionalism' i.e. claims it is too good and virtuous to be bound by international law and morality and can strike at will (e.g. Obama's weaponising of drones), what binding conclusion could have emerged or will emerge for Korea anyway? US will remain piratical until it concedes that its reach exceeds its strength (and after all it has fought wars continually since 1945 and lost them all, $billions of arms notwithstanding); or until it confronts a wider coalition with adequate countervailngpower, perhaps when its subversion and corrupting of foreign governments and parliamentary regimes like the one in UK is broken.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Charles Blum May 27, 2018

You may be underestimating the North's economic distress. This is about a lot more than nukes.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M May 25, 2018

Could the third reason be the lack of appeal or demand for the commemorative coin? The chances of success of such a meeting were very slim from the outset unless one believes in fairy tales. G.W.Bush (Jr) administration tried very hard at engaging NK and failed!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/49y8x0E

Cookies and Privacy

What Sank the Kim-Trump Summit?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Log in/Register

Cookies and Privacy

What Sank the Kim-Trump Summit?

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Support High-Quality Commentary

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification