President Trump is poised to meet again with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un early this year, testing his ability to win more than vague promises from the nuclear-armed dictator.
There is measured optimism that Trump will walk away with a more concrete deal from the meeting, which Trump has said may occur in January or February, compared to last year’s summit meeting in Singapore.
“We’re getting along very well,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One last month, after repeated trips by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to North Korea.
There have been bumps, however, including the abrupt rescheduling of a November meeting between Pompeo and a North Korea diplomat, reportedly after the North sough a pot-sweetener to talk.
Experts disagree on how Trump should approach the second summit, and some are concerned that Trump might offer a unilateral concession similar to his June decision to cancel U.S. war games with South Korea.
Tufts University professor Sung-Yoon Lee, a skeptic of North Korea’s intentions, argues that “Kim Jong Un already has changed the tides dramatically in his favor.”
“The party that is playing hard to get always enjoys the advantage,” he said. “North Korea is very good at illusory concessions.”
The first Trump-Kim summit resulted in a short agreement on four points, including “complete denuclearization” of the Korean Peninsula. Trump boasted that the burgeoning relationship ended test-firing of missiles and nuclear bombs.
Critics panned the agreement, noting that when Kim’s father appeared interested in reform, he banked millions in aid and in sanctions relief, only to test a nuclear weapon in 2006. Sanctions enforcement has been lax against third countries, Lee adds.
“Kim may invite nuclear inspectors to Yongbyon. Maybe he will say he wants to speak at the U.N. General Assembly, or send his sister to the White House,” Lee said. “All of these will be seen as signs, but in my view will be a charade.”
Lee urges Trump to push for far-reaching measures, such as dismantling political prisons, removing artillery pointed at Seoul, or expanding domestic rights to access foreign media.
Without deep reform, Lee imagines another round of tension, perhaps with the North testing a hydrogen bomb in space in a few years. Signing a proposed peace treaty, Lee warned, could create a false sense of security, akin to the 1939 pact between Germany and the Soviet Union.
Other experts have a more optimistic view.
“The worst outcome would be that one or both of the leaders gets frustrated with the pace of progress, the talks fall apart, and the hardliners move into the driver’s seat,” said Stephen Pomper, U.S. program director at the International Crisis Group and a White House National Security Council official under President Obama, who advocates a “modest deal” with Kim.
“It would be dangerous for the U.S. team to go into the talks pushing for unrealistic demands,” said Pomper. “The best result might be some kind of relatively modest trade that would help kickstart a more meaningful diplomatic process. The North Koreans have put shutdown of the Yongbyon nuclear facility on the table. A verified shutdown wouldn’t end North Korea’s program but it could be significant.”
Former U.S. Rep. Jay Kim, R-Calif., chairman of the Washington Korean-American Forum, said he believes the second meeting can be a success without achieving denuclearization.
“I trust Trump. The previous administrations haven’t done much,” said Kim, who currently lives in South Korea. “I believe very optimistically that the second meeting is going to be quite different and that President Trump is very prepared, and that Kim Jong Un understands that he doesn’t have anywhere to go.”
Kim said that North Korea won’t ever give up its nuclear weapons program. “We have got to manage, not get rid of it,” he said.
