• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Douglas H. Paal"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "asia",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
  "programAffiliation": "AP",
  "programs": [
    "Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "South Korea",
    "China",
    "Japan",
    "North Korea"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Arms Control"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie China

All Sides in North Korea Talks Have Chance to Manipulate the Others

As the United States, North Korea, South Korea, and China make moves to tilt the outcome of the Trump-Kim summit in their favor, time is running out to prepare for any real outcomes in Singapore.

Link Copied
By Douglas H. Paal
Published on May 23, 2018

Source: Hill

The anticipated June 12 Singapore summit between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is still likely to take place, but the jockeying for position has now begun in earnest. On Tuesday, Trump told President Moon Jae In that the summit may be postponed or canceled, citing recent actions by China and North Korea. This is just one example of the United States, North Korea, South Korea and China making moves to gain leverage and tilt the outcome of the summit in their favor.

The man in the hot seat is President Moon, America’s ally in Seoul. He is the one who set in motion the diplomacy that has brought the Korean Peninsula from the brink of conflict in December to talk of Nobel Peace prizes in May. Moon won the presidency last year with a weak mandate, but used the opportunity of the Winter Olympics to deliver an unlikely thaw on the Korean Peninsula, with summits between himself and Kim, and planned between Kim and Trump. South Korea goes to the polls for local elections on June 13, and Moon has been hoping progress toward peace will boost his party’s standing.

Kim played his own leverage game a week ago, suspending an inter-Korean dialogue on implementing the outcomes of the late April summit between Moon and Kim at Panmunjom. Kim’s regime also attacked Trump’s new national security adviser, John Bolton, for comparing Korean denuclearization with the Libyan denuclearization in 2003, which the North sees having ended with the collapse of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime and the murder of the leader. Kim was probably trying to press Moon to get Trump to moderate his position this week.

Before that, Kim gave China their chance to play for advantage as well. Kim met on short notice with Chinese President Xi Jinping in the port city of Dalian, presumably to show the world that the North is not isolated as Trump often describes. There is no public account of what was discussed, but the North’s subsequent announcement of suspension of inter-Korean ministerial talks and criticism of Bolton motivated Moon to get Trump to be more accommodating.

Trump mused that the Chinese were interfering with the procession to Singapore in a news conference shortly after. There is no evidence that the Chinese were behind Kim’s more belligerent moves, but some in the Trump administration are pushing that view in order to blame China if the Singapore summit ends in failure.

As the jockeying continues with Trump making the latest effort to gain leverage by saying the summit may not happen at all, time is running out to prepare for any real outcomes for Singapore. Given the apparent disagreement over the meaning of “denuclearization” between the United States and North Korea, the leaders may end up meeting and talking past each other, or canceling the meeting altogether.

Either result is not to America’s advantage. After five months of happy talk about peace and denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula, the South Korean people will not be content to return to a war footing with the United States threatening to give the North a “bloody nose.” A wedge will appear between the progressive South Korean government in Seoul and hawks in Washington, achieving a longstanding objective of the North to divide the United States from its allies. Japan should shudder too.

The unanimity on the United Nations Security Council in passing harsh resolutions against a belligerent Pyongyang is unlikely to be sustained after the North’s overtures to limiting its nuclear capabilities by dismantling its nuclear test site and continuously advertising its willingness to go further. The lack of missile and nuclear tests since last year reinforces the North’s message of peaceful negotiations and denuclearization. The issues of leakage of trade and humanitarian assistance to the North will rise to the surface again.

The Trump administration and U.S. officials must get to work immediately. This is the time for intense direct diplomacy to prepare the way to Singapore and concerted public messaging by the United States about its objectives, not random efforts to manipulate leverage among the interested parties. The balance of benefits may otherwise shift from much to gain to too much to lose in Singapore.

This piece was originally published in the Hill.

About the Author

Douglas H. Paal

Distinguished Fellow, Asia Program

Paal previously served as vice chairman of JPMorgan Chase International and as unofficial U.S. representative to Taiwan as director of the American Institute in Taiwan.

    Recent Work

  • Paper
    America’s Future in a Dynamic Asia

      Douglas H. Paal

  • Q&A
    U.S.-China Relations at the Forty-Year Mark
      • +1

      Douglas H. Paal, Tong Zhao, Chen Qi, …

Douglas H. Paal
Distinguished Fellow, Asia Program
Douglas H. Paal
SecurityForeign PolicyNuclear PolicyArms ControlNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaSouth KoreaChinaJapanNorth 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 Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Lukashenko’s Concessions to Kyiv Reflect Russia’s Weakness

    The recent damage inflicted by Ukrainian drones and missiles on Russia has made Belarus aware of its own vulnerabilities—and surprisingly amenable to Kyiv’s demands.

      Artyom Shraibman

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Could Ukraine Succeed in Torpedoing Putin’s Approval Ratings?

    It is not a phenomenon unique to Russia that the public of a country at war (even the aggressor) enduring airstrikes will not overturn its government but rather show solidarity with it and blame its woes on the enemy.

      Vladislav Gorin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Iran War Fallout Gifts Putin Diplomatic Victory at ASEAN Summit

    Russia looks set to reap economic benefits from closer ties with Southeast Asian countries that are keen to find reliable energy suppliers and diversify trade ties.

      • Alexander Gabuev

      Alexander Gabuev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Simmering U.S.-Iran Conflict Is Moscow’s Ideal Outcome

    Ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East allows Moscow to both increase its influence in Tehran and continue to enjoy the financial windfall of higher oil prices.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Multiple Wars Are Ruining Central Asia’s Efforts to Diversify Its Trade Routes

    This year’s wars have made alternative routes to transit through Russia no less risky for Central Asian countries.

      Galiya Ibragimova

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.