When an international summit breaks up early, the leaders’ lunch is cancelled and there is no progress to announce, it is fair to conclude that things have not gone well. So both diplomats and markets have reacted negatively to the failure of the US-North Korea summit to advance the goals of denuclearisation and peace on the Korean peninsula.
The outcome of the meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un is undoubtedly a setback. But it is not a disaster. As Mr Trump suggested, it does not preclude the possibility that a deal will eventually be reached. Those with long memories might recall the 1986 Reykjavik summit between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the leaders of the US and the Soviet Union, which broke down in dramatic fashion — only to be followed by an arms control agreement a year later.
Mr Trump, like the late President Reagan, stands accused of going into a summit under-prepared and of placing too much emphasis on personal chemistry with his opposite number, rather than careful diplomatic preparation.
There is some justice to these accusations. But the US president also deserves some credit. He has moved away from the dangerous rhetoric of his early period in office, when he threatened North Korea with “fire and fury”. His new desire to test the possibility of diplomacy is certainly preferable to the hawkish instincts of some of his senior appointees. Chief among these is John Bolton, the national security adviser in the White House, who as a private citizen wrote articles advocating a first strike on North Korea.
Mr Trump is unlikely ever to achieve his goal of the complete denuclearisation of North Korea. But the diplomatic track has already yielded some important advances. As the US president noted, it is important that North Korea has maintained its suspension of missile tests, which were raising military tensions to dangerous levels. From a purely American perspective, this achieves the important goal of keeping North Korea below the threshold where it can credibly threaten to strike the US with an intercontinental nuclear missile.
But there is still much to do to reduce security tensions on the Korean peninsula itself, and in the wider east Asian region. The Hanoi summit appears to have broken down because North Korea wanted a complete lifting of economic sanctions, in return for only partial denuclearisation.
The obvious avenue to explore, over the coming months, is whether negotiations can deliver partial denuclearisation, in return for a partial lifting of sanctions. This would certainly be welcomed by the government of South Korea, led by President Moon Jae-in. The Moon administration is keen to test the possibilities for inter-Korean projects on manufacturing, tourism and trade. Encouraging a process of reform and opening in North Korea must ultimately be the best hope for reducing tensions on the peninsula, and bringing increased freedom and prosperity to the oppressed and impoverished people of the north.
Advocates of rapprochement with North Korea, such as the US and South Korean leaders, are often accused of naivety. Mr Trump’s gushing praise for Mr Kim is certainly jarring, and sometimes peculiar. But, rhetoric aside, there is room for further testing of the North Korean leader’s intentions and capacity for reform.
A step-by-step process — trading disarmament for economic opening — could help to build confidence, reduce tensions and open up North Korea to outside influences. The Hanoi summit may have failed, but it should not close the door on diplomacy.
