Article
C. Raja Mohan, Darshana M. Baruah
{
"authors": [
"C. Raja Mohan"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie India"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie India",
"programAffiliation": "SAP",
"programs": [
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"United States",
"East Asia",
"Indo-Pacific",
"North America",
"North Korea"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy",
"Security",
"Nuclear Policy",
"Global Governance"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Reading the Singapore Summit Statement: Three Principles and One Political Gesture
In the course of one morning in Singapore, U.S. President Donald Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un have begun to loosen a deeply entrenched and hostile relationship.
Published on Jun 12, 2018
Source: Indian Express
Only a few other countries have demonised America as much as North Korea. The United States returned the favour by putting the rulers of the Kim dynasty in the gallery of rouge regimes. In the course of one morning in Singapore, US President Donald Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un have begun to loosen a deeply entrenched and hostile relationship.
Reading the short statement issued after the talks between the two leaders, you would think it did not take much to do this—just three simple political principles.
The first principle is about building a new relationship between America and North Korea. The second is about building a stable peace regime in the Korean Peninsula. The third is about ridding the Korean Peninsula of nuclear weapons.
When you unpack the three principles you will begin to see a rather complex story. The first takes us back to the Korean War of 1950-53, which saw thousands of American, Korean and Chinese soldiers die. It also divided the Peninsula and put Washington and Pyongyang on the path of perennial enmity. Ending the prolonged tensions and building a new relationship between America and North Korea has inevitably become the first principle for Trump and Kim.
The second refers to a ‘stable peace regime’ in the Peninsula. This is about America guaranteeing the security of North Korea. If nuclear weapons were in insurance for the Kim family against regime change, Trump is assuring Kim that he has no intention of dislodging the family from power.
A stable peace regime also demands reduction of military tensions between US and North Korea. At his press conference Trump revealed that he is suspending the routine but provocative military exercises that America conducts in South Korea. He also mused about withdrawing American troops from the Korean Peninsula over the longer term.
The third refers to denuclearisation. If Kim sees no threat to his survival, why does he need nuclear weapons? The first two principles quite clearly create the political conditions for nuclear disarmament in North Korea.
To be sure, there will be many problems when the two sides begin to put flesh on the bones of this agreement. Trump and Kim know they need a lot mutual trust to realise the goals of this agreement. That brings us to the political gesture.
Kim promised to recover the remains of thousands of American soldiers captured or missing in action during the Korean War. This move comes on top of Kim’s earlier confidence-building measures like suspension of nuclear and missile tests, destruction of nuclear test site, and release of American political prisoners.
With the three principles and one gesture, Trump and Kim may have begun to move the Korean Peninsula into uncharted but hopefully calmer waters.
This article was originally published in the Indian Express.
About the Author
C. Raja Mohan
Former Nonresident Senior Fellow, Carnegie India
A leading analyst of India’s foreign policy, Mohan is also an expert on South Asian security, great-power relations in Asia, and arms control.
- Deepening the India-France Maritime Partnership
- Shanghai Cooperation Organization at Crossroads: Views From Moscow, Beijing and New DelhiCommentary
- +1
Alexander Gabuev, Paul Haenle, C. Raja Mohan, …
Recent Work
Foreign PolicySecurityNuclear PolicyGlobal GovernanceUnited StatesEast AsiaIndo-PacificNorth AmericaNorth Korea
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- After the Midterm Rout, Can Trump Change Course Without Giving Up Tariffs?Commentary
Even if the administration maintains its broader trade policy, it should use tariffs more strategically and work with U.S. partners, not against them.
Barbara Weisel
- By Waging War on Its Sovereignty, Putin Has United UkraineCommentary
The war does threaten Putin’s existence. That is why he does not negotiate.
René Nyberg
- What the New Democratic Congress Can (and Can’t) Do on Foreign PolicyCommentary
Democrats now have the gavel and the purse, but the executive branch still pulls the levers on the U.S. role in the world.
- +10
James M. Acton, Dan Baer, Mark Baldassare, …
- How a U.S.-Russia Standoff Ended a Decades-Old UN Mission in Western SaharaCommentary
MINURSO’s renewal by the Security Council became highly politicized. Its expiration brings concerns about renewed violence and the future of demining efforts.
Sarah Yerkes
- COP31 and the Future of Climate ClubsCommentary
As the United States exits UN climate efforts, these smaller and less formal groupings will take on greater significance in global climate governance.
Theodore Zaritsky, Stewart Patrick
