Opinion | Donald Trump can make the deal of the century with Kim Jong-un – if he offers North Korea a blueprint to a ‘brighter future’

Chan Young Bang says the US lacks a strategy that accounts for the goals of all stakeholders on the peninsula and Kim Jong-un’s desire for regime stability

Sanctions and diplomatic pressure should be supplemented by the promise of an economic development fund, infrastructural support and security guarantees

Reading Time:3 minutes

North Korea leader Kim Jong-un (left) and US President Donald Trump shake hands after their meetings on Sentosa Island in Singapore on June 12. Photo: AFP

Published: 1:01am, 8 Nov 2018Updated: 2:14am, 8 Nov 2018

When reading most commentaries on North Korea over the past few months, one might be convinced that the world sits at a historic juncture for the Korean peninsula. Against this prevalent, though moderate, optimism, I argue that the moment is crucial — but for reasons currently ignored by the sea of mainstream analyses and op-eds.

Below the surface of recent summits, meetings and declarations lies a twofold question no one has addressed so far: what do US President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in mean, exactly, when they hint that “a brighter future” awaits North Korea after denuclearisation, and how would North Korea get there?

To date, there is no indication that either the US or South Korea possess a coherent, tangible plan to deliver on this promise, let alone a strategy that can be shared by all the stakeholders – China, Russia and Japan – whose support is essential, as no single actor possesses all the necessary sticks and carrots to persuade North Korea to denuclearise.

Watch: Korean leaders pledge to ‘end the history of tragic conflict’

At the same time, while North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has gradually hinted that he may be ready to exchange weapons for economic development, he doesn’t seem to have a concrete exit strategy from what has so far been his only claim to legitimacy — nuclear capability.

To make matters worse, numerous cracks are already visible in the alliance that is supposed to unite not only Seoul and Washington but also Beijing, Moscow and Tokyo; there seems to be a much clearer alignment between the tone of North and South Korean media than between the declarations of South Korea and the US.

Why should Kim embrace a strategy which provides neither a viable survival plan for the regime nor a road map to economic prosperity for the nation?

Finally, the US increasingly resorts to policing its own allies in attempts to ensure compliance with sanctions, while South Korea overtly advocates for the progressive easing of sanctions and the return to economic aid and joint projects with North Korea.

Though the US remains the key actor, it clearly lacks any insight into how to circumvent the current impasse. The naivety that characterises the Trump administration’s approach to North Korea is encapsulated in a sentence from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s latest mission to Pyongyang explaining that the US “will get to denuclearisation in a fully verified, irreversible way, and then we will actually deliver on the commitments to make this brighter future for the North Korean people”.

The current US approach, as summarised by Pompeo, offers North Korea nothing valuable; it simply stipulates that a poor, unstable and nuclear-armed state should be disarmed — but then what? Why should Kim embrace a strategy which provides neither a viable survival plan for the regime nor a road map to economic prosperity for the nation?

Kim inherited a country set on hard-line military policy (songgun) and self-reliance (juche), which he gradually tried to steer in the direction of a dual-track policy (byungjin). He is now signalling his commitment to renouncing military action and embracing economic development as well as joining international institutions. Nevertheless, current analyses do not address the need for a blueprint that enables North Korea to do so.