Averting or Quieting a Nuclear Crisis?

Jenna Hansen

Professor Collin Moore

10/23/18
Summary of U.S. - DPRK Relations

The political landscape between the United States and the Democratic People’s Republic

of Korea, which President Trump stepped into on November 6, 2016, can be defined by two

words, nuclear instability. Over the course of President Trump’s current term in office, the

building tensions due to the back and forth threats between the countries caused the relationship

with the DPRK to be a series of ups and downs. In July of 2017, North Korea launched an

Intercontinental Ballistic Missile causing President Trump to react. In August of 2017, President

Trump makes a statement regarding threats made by the DPRK towards the U.S. — Warning the

use of power he states, “They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never

seen” (Higgins, 2018). In response to President Trump’s statement, North Korea responds by

threatening to strike Guam. Following the threat, in October of 2017, President Trump calls out

the North Korean leader Kim Jung Un via Twitter, calling him “little rocket man”. A very

apparent switch then occurs sometime within the time frame of this tweet and April 2018 after

the South and North Korean summit, because after a failed summit attempt in May, the June

2018 Summit takes place in Singapore between the U.S. and DPRK leadership. (Higgins, 2018)

Resulting in Summit (Jun. 2018)

Having chronologically summarized the political events starting from when President

Trump took office leading to the June 2018 Summit in Singapore, there is a clear change of

mindset from Realism to Liberalism. Political Realism is exemplified between the DPRK firing

an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile in July 2017 and Trump’s “little rocket man” tweet in

October 2017. In this case of Realism, both the U.S. and the DPRK show brazen acts of military

power through a tit-for-tat interaction on the subject of nuclear weapons. Between the months of
October 2017 and April 2018, when the first discussions of peace are initiated, there seems to be

a stark contrast between the level of aggression with which these two countries interact. In this

new state of political Liberalism, both parties seem to be striving to cooperate and unify around a

common goal; to establish positive future relations and improve the security of their countries.

The pinnacle of this realization is embodied in the June 2018 Summit held in Singapore where a

joint statement of peace was agreed upon and signed.

Joint Statement Described

The joint statement includes the following goals:

1. Establish New Relations -

The U.S. and the DPRK commit to establish new relations with each other for the

congruent desires of peace and prosperity for their people.

2. Build lasting peace -

The U.S. and the DPRK commit to join efforts in working towards building a lasting and

stable peace in the Korean peninsula.

3. Reaffirm April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration -

The DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula

for the progression of a safer international system through communication and cooperation rather

than violence.

4. Recover POW/MIA remains -

The U.S. and the DPRK commit to recovering and returning known POW/MIA remains

in each country, honoring soldiers by bringing them home.

(Williams, 2018)
Joint Statement Challenges

Though the goals of the statement are optimistic, the main challenge is that there is a

clear avoidance of specific action items. The exception is the last goal, in which the agreement

clearly states a specific action item in regards to the POW/MIA remains, “including the

immediate repatriation of those already identified” (Williams, 2018). The goals are vague and

lack specificity, clouding the probability and reality of it actually succeeding. They describe what

is going to be done without stating how or even when it is going to be done. “There is no

mention that the process should be verifiable or irreversible - which is what the US has been

pushing for. There is no timetable to disarm North Korea nor is there any invitation for weapons

inspectors to be allowed in” (Bicker, 2018). And although both sides have agreed to hold follow

up negotiations “at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK

summit” (Williams, 2018), I won’t hold my breath.

Conclusion

Overall, the goals of the joint statement as a result of the historic summit in Singapore are

inherently good. They attempt to show a change of face in the hostile relationship between the

United States and North Korea that has been routine since even before President Trump’s

presidency. The summit that has taken place since President Trump taking office, when the

switch from Realism to Liberalism occurred, is a step in the right direction of a better future

between the two countries. However, the fact of there being no set action items, with the

exception of the last goal regarding POWs, really challenges the statements credibility. From the

surface it seems that we may have averted a nuclear crisis from across the world, but in reality,

after delving deeper, it is very possible the crisis has just been quieted for the time being.
References:

Higgins, T. (2018, June 01). Here are all the twists and turns in Trump's North Korean nuclear

diplomacy. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/30/timeline-of-trumps-soap-opera-

diplomacy-with-north-korea.html

Trump Kim summit: US and North Korean leaders hold historic talks. (2018, June 12). Retrieved

from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44435035

Williams, J. (2018, June 12). Read: Full text of the Trump-Kim agreement. Retrieved from

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/12/17452532/trump-kim-document-agreement-full-text-

denuclearization-read