Recently, Kim Jong Un has reignited global debate across the world, as he makes conditional openness to talks with the United States of America: negotiations are possible only if Trump disposes of the demand for denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. In the backdrop of geopolitical tensions amid Kim’s escalating weapons, and South Korea’s deepening military alliance with the US, much is dependent on Trump’s reaction and policies.
It is to highlight that in the previous term of Donald Trump in the Oval Office, three high-profile summits – the Singapore Summit, 2018; the Hanoi Summit, 2019; and the Stockholm Summit, 2019 – were observed between the two states, which took decades of diplomacy for the two states to sit together. Though the summits collapsed, they left a historic mark. Donald Trump was the first sitting US president who moved to gather courage to bring the North Korean leader to the table. Their interaction is still fresh in memories: high hopes, symbolism, and bromance, a relationship that mixed personal warmth with sharp strategic clashes. Moreover, if a little history is quoted, sanctions on Pyongyang were the hardest hit, Trump labelled Kim as a “little rocket man”, and fire was often exchanged between the two leaders, but tensions got lowered once the negotiations began. In recent times, Kim was seen recalling the memories with Trump and terming them ‘fond’.
Moreover, recent developments signal Kim’s willingness to re-engage with the US, but terms have already been cleared. Pyongyang has demanded Washington drop the denuclearisation condition to get stabilised geopolitical fragmentation. Moving ahead, his declaration of denuclearisation being “off the table” and acclaiming that sanctions and pressure have made the country stronger than ever, the resistance built cannot be crushed, and the endurance that has persisted for so long has backfired in a robust way, harbinger how resilient the state has emerged out of the decades of isolation. Alongside this, Kim rejected South Korea’s plans for reunification with North Korea, as he contemplates it as insincere and intended to destroy his regime. His hardened stance is visible not towards the US alone, but towards Seoul’s attempts at rapprochement. He shuts down nuclear diplomacy and dialogues between the two Koreas.
Crucially, Pyongyang is no longer in seclusion, as Moscow has developed a strategic alliance, offering support in return for arms, while China stands by the side of Pyongyang, providing strategic cover. These are abating internal pressures and altering the state’s survival mode. The shifting balance reduces vulnerability to Western pressure, but the strategic moves are hard to be changed unless diplomatically addressed.
It is to note that by rejecting denuclearisation, he hints at his perception of nukes for the country; he regards weapons proliferation as essential for the country and his regime’s survival. As Trump is back in power for the second time after the recent elections, though the two leaders have enjoyed high times discussing major developments together, the former is still a threat to DPRK’s regime. It is clearly demonstrated how threatening Kim’s regime feels in the face of the US and its ally, South Korea. The security and foreign policies of Washington, its military intervention in the region, and its alliance system against Pyongyang are all contributing factors in weapons building. Additionally, the statements clearly mark that nothing less than backing from denuclearisation would be accepted.
Besides, as far as the US reaction is concerned, it is seminal to pinpoint that denuclearisation has remained an irreversible stance of the strategic US policy. Its long-standing objective seems to be persistent, and the complete departure of Washington’s strategic and foreign policy appears to be elusive in the near future. In a few trilateral statements with Seoul and Tokyo, the US reaffirmed its “resolute commitment” to the complete denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula; the country is committed to a nuclear-free peninsula. Additionally, Seoul echoed Washington’s stance and emphasised that regional instability might result out of it. DPRK’s response has ignited the powers and created anxiety in the region while further paving the way towards insecure geopolitics with uncertain upshots.
Kim’s conditional diplomacy has set the stage where a clash of wills is evident. It is the focus to discern how the politics unfold over time and if selective diplomacy works to cast out the rigidity of denuclearisation in Trump’s policies or mounted insecurity brings about the worst the world has not expected. Lastly, whether the peninsula remains under the nuclear stalemate or avoids further proliferation is the key question revolving in international relations, and it depends upon how the US unlocks its diplomatic measures regarding North Korea.
Be the first to comment