 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| . |  |
. |
 By Sebastien BERGER Singapore (AFP) June 12, 2018
Two key words were conspicuous by their absence from the joint statement signed by US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un after their high-profile, soundbite-rich summit in Singapore. Washington has long said it wants to see the "complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation" (CVID) of the nuclear-armed, ballistic-missile-equipped North. Each of the words is significant, with the US wanting to ensure Pyongyang allows in inspectors to ensure that it fulfils its promises, and that it does not rebuild any weapons it gives up. Only on Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the US had been "fooled before", with presidents signing agreements only to find "the North Koreans did not promise what they said". "The 'V' matters," he told reporters less than 24 hours before the two leaders put pen to paper. "We will set up a system to verify. It is only that we pursued. That is what has been missed before." But the V-word did not appear anywhere in the joint statement signed by the two men, and nor did another of Washington's key demands, for "irreversible" denuclearisation. Instead, the North committed "to work toward complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula". The phrase is a diplomatic euphemism that is open to wide interpretation on both sides -- Pyongyang has in the past demanded the withdrawal of US troops from the South, and said it will give up its weapons when all other nuclear powers do the same. Koo Kab-woo, professor at the University of North Korean Studies in Seoul, told AFP: "I think they couldn't reach an agreement on CVID in the end, namely 'V' and 'I'. For verification, the US probably demanded to have access to anywhere at any time and the North declined." Irreversibility was even more complicated, he said, as it related to data Pyongyang has accumulated over its decades of weapons development, and reassigning its nuclear scientists. "That's the core of the 'I' and it seems they failed to reach an agreement on that," he said. In the event, he pointed out, the topics highlighted in the agreement had similarities to a recent editorial in the Rodong Sinmun, the official newspaper of the North's ruling Workers' Party. "I think there will be a huge backlash in the US," he added. Trump told reporters that there had not been time to discuss the details of denuclearisation. "I'm here one day," he said. "It wasn't a big point today because really this had been taken care of," adding: "It will be verified. We will be verifying." - 'Baby steps' - The summit was a marked contrast from the tensions of last year, when the two men traded personal insults and threats of war, and proponents of engagement argue that as long as negotiations continue, the risk of a devastating conflict are reduced. "There's a danger of myopia in looking at this purely through the lens of details and definition of denuclearisation," said Yonsei University professor John Delury, adding it was "important to take a big step back" and look at the big picture. And Vienna university Korea expert Ruediger Frank said: "Trump saved the process by taking it slow and one baby step at a time, rather than killing it before it starts -- like his predecessors did despite the best intentions." But others pointed out the North had made similar promises in the past, and in some cases had gone much further. In 1993, after talks in New York, the US and North Korea agreed to the principles of "peace and security in a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula". In that statement, Pyongyang agreed to suspend its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "North Korea committed to nothing that it hasn't done so for 25 years," MIT associate professor of political science Vipin Narang told AFP. "So far, there is no reason to believe this summit produced anything more concrete than that on the disarmament front." And in 2005 -- just a year before its first nuclear test -- the North went much further, agreeing "to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programmes". A year later it carried out its first nuclear test. It has since detonated five more, each of them more powerful than the last, and developed missiles capable of reached anywhere in the mainland US. Nonproliferation expert Jeffrey Lewis tweeted: "North Korea is still not offering to disarm."
A Nobel in the offing for Trump and Kim Jong Un? Maybe, but it's still early days, say experts. The US president and the North Korean leader on Tuesday signed an agreement which, while short on details, reaffirmed Pyongyang's commitment to the "complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula". Some commentators and politicians have suggested the pair be awarded a Nobel for their efforts. But experts say the prestigious prize -- at least for now -- may remain elusive for the duo. Timing and personalities count against both leaders, they say. Trump has given a seismic shock to international diplomacy by, among other things, pulling the US out of a landmark nuclear deal with Iran, while Kim is guilty of numerous human rights violations. And then there is the question of whether their process bears fruit. The diplomacy of disarmament is invariably risk-laden, complex and long. "It's too early," Asle Sveen, a historian who specialises in the Nobel prize, said of the prospects for a Kim-Trump award. "But if (the agreement) were to lead to real disarmament on the Korean peninsula, it would be very difficult to not award them the prize. It would be a bizarre situation, but that's happened in the past, that people with a pretty violent past have received the Nobel Peace Prize," he said. Even before the Singapore summit, several people, including South Korean President Moon Jae-in, former US president Jimmy Carter and British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, suggested Trump could deserve the Nobel. One fake Nobel Peace Prize nomination for Trump has already been invalidated after a case of identity fraud was uncovered earlier this year. But 18 Republicans have nominated him for 2019 in recognition of "his tireless work to bring peace to our world." Ten years after it awarded the Peace Prize to the newly-elected Barack Obama in a move that was widely mocked as being premature, the Nobel committee does not want to repeat past mistakes. And in 2000, the Nobel was awarded to then South Korean president Kim Dae-jung for his reconciliation efforts with the North, which turned out to be little more than "a public relations campaign," said Henrik Urdal, the head of the Peace Research Institute of Oslo (Prio). "I think they'll probably wait to see some pretty significant results before giving another prize in that direction," Urdal told AFP. Dan Smith, the head of Stockholm peace research institute SIPRI, agreed the Nobel would be premature. "Today's agreement is a good first step but the journey is long and complicated. Other things President Trump has done -- most notably withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, which is crucial for global security, and destabilising the Iran nuclear deal, which is crucial for Middle East regional stability -- are much less positive for peace." - 'Blood on their hands' - If real progress were to be made on the Korean peninsula, the Nobel committee would find itself in a bit of a dilemma, given the track record of the two main actors. "Many of those who have received the Peace Prize have had quite a bit of blood on their hands," noted Urdal. "The question is whether they did enough good that it washes out the blood. Neither Trump nor Kim Jong Un have done enough this year to win the prize." Geir Lundestad, who served as the influential secretary of the Nobel committee between 1990 and 2014, used to say that the "Nobel is not a prize for saints." "But you don't have to push this logic to the extreme either," he told AFP on Tuesday. He hailed the Singapore summit but expressed scepticism about the possibility of a Nobel at this stage. "These two people have a lot of baggage: Kim is one of the worst dictators in the world and Donald Trump is in the process of tearing down the political and economic structures that the US set up after 1945 and that have benefitted everyone," he said. Urdal meanwhile pointed to the paradoxes in Trump's diplomacy. "The thing that damages Trump's chances the most is that he pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal," Urdal said. "At the same that he's choosing the path of peace on the Korean peninsula, he's stoking a conflict in the Middle East and is putting an entire region in danger." Peter Wallensteen, a Swedish professor specialised in international relations, said South Korean President Moon Jae-in deserved to be included if ever a prize were awarded for peace in Korea. "Actually, Moon might be the one that deserves this the most, but that would be a slap against Trump!"
Trump, Kim hail historic summit despite doubts over agreement Singapore (AFP) June 12, 2018 Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un hailed their historic summit Tuesday as a breakthrough in relations between Cold War foes, but the agreement they produced was short on details about the key issue of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons. The extraordinary encounter saw the leader of the world's most powerful democracy shake hands with the third generation scion of a ruling dynasty, standing as equals in front of their nations' flags. Kim agreed to the "complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula", a st ... read more
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
| The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2024 - Space Media Network. All websites are published in Australia and are solely subject to Australian law and governed by Fair Use principals for news reporting and research purposes. AFP, UPI and IANS news wire stories are copyright Agence France-Presse, United Press International and Indo-Asia News Service. ESA news reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. All articles labeled "by Staff Writers" include reports supplied to Space Media Network by industry news wires, PR agencies, corporate press officers and the like. Such articles are individually curated and edited by Space Media Network staff on the basis of the report's information value to our industry and professional readership. Advertising does not imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Statement Our advertisers use various cookies and the like to deliver the best ad banner available at one time. All network advertising suppliers have GDPR policies (Legitimate Interest) that conform with EU regulations for data collection. By using our websites you consent to cookie based advertising. If you do not agree with this then you must stop using the websites from May 25, 2018. Privacy Statement. Additional information can be found here at About Us. |
del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Google
