AFA Monthly logo

27 February 2019

With Jonathan Pearlman

The Hanoi summit

Today in Hanoi, Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un will start their second summit on North Korea’s nuclear program. This follows last year’s meeting in Singapore, which was described by Trump as a war-averting triumph but was actually an embarrassing failure: Trump granted Kim international legitimacy and, going off-script, suspended US military exercises with South Korea, yet received no serious concessions in return.

This time, however, there are signs that the White House is better prepared. Unlike the Singapore meeting, which centred on theatrics and a grand twelve-second handshake between the two leaders, the Vietnam summit will continue for two days, allowing officials to negotiate and refine the terms of a possible deal. Progress will depend on whether the leaders can give concrete form to a process of denuclearisation, and whether Kim genuinely believes in the economic benefits of compromise. 

The Hanoi summit was preceded by numerous meetings between American and North Korean officials, and the appointment of a new US Special Representative for North Korea, Stephen Biegun. In a recent speech at Stanford, Biegun sounded upbeat, suggesting that a detailed “roadmap” to denuclearisation was possible. He also acknowledged the need to engage with other countries, including South Korea and China, and states such as Australia that can help pressure Pyongyang.

Trump, too, appears to have entered this summit less blindly. Despite sometimes lapsing into premature assertions about the prospects of a breakthrough, he said on Sunday: “I’m not in a rush.” This was at least an acknowledgment that a lasting deal will require much more than the sort of vague declaration that came out of Singapore.

The main obstacle to such a deal is that the great goal of these summits – denuclearisation – still lacks an agreed definition. For Washington, it means Pyongyang dismantling its weapons program and capability; for Pyongyang, it means Washington removing its troops and military capabilities from South Korea. Without detail, another overarching post-summit statement committing to denuclearisation will remain ambiguous and dangerous. There are good reasons to be wary of Pyongyang, which has a record of breaking agreements and exploiting ambiguities. A comprehensive agreement, complete with timelines and procedures for verifying compliance, would ensure that a deal’s success does not depend on either Trump’s instincts or Kim’s trustworthiness. 

A second question is whether Kim can be persuaded that the economic benefits would be worth the price of abandoning his nuclear ambitions. This is the carrot offered by the United States, including a potential end to sanctions. “With complete Denuclearisation, North Korea will rapidly become an Economic Powerhouse,” Trump tweeted on Monday. “Without it, just more of the same.” 

Most observers believe that Kim is genuinely committed to economic development. Since becoming leader in 2011, he has edged towards greater free market activity, including allowing farmers to keep a share of their produce. But economic reform has been slow and tightly controlled, and other analysts insist that Kim’s reluctance to open North Korea’s economy and society risks hindering the long-term prospects for a nuclear deal because the country will remain stagnant and will not be in a position to reap the benefits of international engagement.

South Korea has been trying to compensate for its neighbour’s slow economic progress. Its president, Moon Jae-in, who has been a strong proponent of talks with Kim, is keen to promote commercial ties and last year took corporate leaders on a visit to Pyongyang. Moon supports inter-Korean projects, but without an end to international sanctions, many of them are hamstrung. In December, a special nine-car train took a two-hour journey from Seoul to Kaesong, in North Korea, as part of a ceremony to herald a future reconnection of rail links between the countries. But Seoul needed permission from the United Nations to hold the ceremony, and will not be able to proceed further with the rail project until restrictions on transporting goods and vehicles to North Korea are lifted.

Clearly, there are serious obstacles to a long-term breakthrough to the North Korea impasse – and any Trumpian statements of progress that emerge when the summit ends on Thursday should be treated with caution. Yet there are signs that the White House understands that a deal must involve more than a long handshake – and that Kim’s priorities are shifting, slowly. 


Air strikes won’t fix India’s Pakistan problem

“It’s hard to see the airstrikes as anything but a temporary victory. They’re unlikely to prevent future attacks in Kashmir, nor the ensuing need for even more spectacular retaliation, nor the risk of provoking a conflagration between two nuclear powers.” Nisid Hajari, Bloomberg

Continuing strains in Sino–Australian relations

“While many blithely say that Australia should just diversify its trade partners, the reality is that many sectors cannot do without China. Decoupling is not an option.” Nick Bisley, Asia Dialogue

Paladin, Manus, and private security – a treacherous history

“These security contracts are complex . . . But for contracts that concern the potential use of force, or the delicacy of operating in a politically fragile environment, a higher level of oversight than is applied to other contracts is essential.” Sarah Percy, The Interpreter (Lowy Institute)


Women’s representation in the 2018 Fiji elections

“While women’s representation as candidates and members of parliament is increasing, the Fijian political sphere remains a masculinised space and can be hostile to women.” Kerryn Baker, Devpolicy Blog

How China exports repression to Africa

“As part of the trillion-dollar international development strategy, the Belt and Road Initiative, Chinese companies have been instrumental in providing artificial intelligence and facial recognition systems to African governments.” Samuel Woodhams, The Diplomat

Free from Australian Foreign Affairs

Dictatorland: The Men Who Stole Africa, book review by Santilla Chingaipe

“As the sensationalist title and description indicate, the book perpetuates generalisations about Africa that have long coloured Western media coverage of the continent. Kenyon, a veteran BBC correspondent, spent years reporting from Africa and boasts of having visited almost every African country in trailing the footsteps of these men. On this basis, he considers himself qualified to claim that some of Africa’s worst dictators singlehandedly plundered an entire continent.” Santilla Chingaipe, HERE



I don’t want my children to carry the nuclear weapon on their back their whole life

Kim Jong-un, Leader (North Korea)

We have never had an opportunity like this ... it will never come again.

Moon Jae-in, President (South Korea)

There may have to be another summit ... we may not get everything done this week.

Mike Pompeo, secretary of state (United States)

Sources: Reuters, The New York Times [$], Vanity Fair.

Read past editions of AFA Monthly

Sign up to AFA Monthly to get each new edition in your inbox