Koreas summit: Will historic talks lead to lasting peace?

Friday’s dramatic meeting between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and his North Korean counterpart, Chairman Kim Jong-un, represents an unambiguous historic breakthrough at least in terms of the image of bilateral reconciliation and the emotional uplift it has given to South Korea public opinion.

Whether the agreement announced at the meeting – the new Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula – offers, in substance, the right mix of concrete measures to propel the two Koreas and the wider international community towards a lasting peace remains an open question.

The symbolic impact of a North Korean leader setting foot for the first time on South Korean soil cannot be underestimated.

Mr Kim’s bold decision to stride confidently into nominally hostile territory reflects the young dictator’s confidence and acute sense of political theatre and expertly executed timing.

His clever, seemingly spontaneous gesture to President Moon to reciprocate his step into the South by having him join him for an instance in stepping back into the North was an inspired way of asserting the equality of the two countries and their leaders.

It also, by blurring the boundary between the two countries, hinted at the goal of unification that both Seoul and Pyongyang have long sought to realise.

The rest of the day was full of visual firsts and a set of cleverly choreographed images of the two leaders chatting informally and intimately in the open air – deliberately advancing a powerful new narrative of the two Koreas as agents of their own destiny.

Handshakes, broad smiles and bear hugs have amplified this message of Koreans determining their own future, in the process offsetting past memories of a peninsula all too often dominated by the self-interest of external great powers, whether China, Japan, or more recently, during the Cold War, the United States and the former Soviet Union.

  • Historic summit as it happened
  • Key moments from the meeting
  • Read the Korean declaration in full
  • Five conflicts that continued after they ended

    The two leaders’ joint statements before the international media were another pitch perfect moment for Mr Kim to challenge the world’s preconceptions.

    In an instance, Mr Kim’s confident and relaxed announcement to the press dispelled the picture of a remote, rigid, autocratic leader in favour of a normal, humanised statesman, intent on working to advance the cause of peace and national reconciliation.

    A cynic might see this as both a simple propaganda victory for Mr Kim, and also his attempt to lock in place the nuclear and missile advances the North has already achieved by calling for “phased…disarmament” – by intentionally downplaying the expectation of immediate progress while emphasising the need for step-by-step negotiations.

    • Why has Kim halted nuclear tests now?
    • Profile: Kim Jong-un
    • North Korea crisis in 300 words

      The joint declaration echoes the themes of past accords, including the previous Korean leaders summits of 2000 and 2007, and an earlier 1991 bilateral Reconciliation and Non-Aggression agreement.

      Plans to establish joint liaison missions, military dialogue and confidence building measures, economic co-operation, and the expansion of contact between the citizens of the two countries have featured in earlier agreements.

      However, Friday’s declaration is more specific in its proposals, with the two countries pledging, for example, “to cease all hostile acts against each other in every domain, including land, sea and air…” and providing a series of key dates for the early implementation by both sides of a raft of new confidence building measures.

      These include the cessation of “all hostile acts” near the demilitarised zone by 1 May, the start of bilateral military talks in May, joint participation by the two Koreas in the 2018 Asian Games, the re-establishment of family reunions by 15 August, and, perhaps most importantly of all, a return visit to the North by President Moon’s by as soon as the autumn of this year.

      Committing to early, albeit incremental, steps in the direction of peace, appears to be motivated by the Korean leaders’ wish to foster an irresistible sense of momentum and urgency.

      The declaration also calls for future peace treaty talks involving the two Koreas, together with one or both of China and the US.

      The logic of binding external actors into a definite – but evolving – timetable for progress on key issues is that it lowers the risk of conflict on the peninsula – something both Koreas are keen to avoid and which they have long had reason to fear given the past bellicose language of a “fire and fury” Donald Trump.

      Playing for time is a viable option, given that President Moon is at the start of his five-year presidency – a marked contrast to the summits of 2000 and 2007, when the respective leaders of the South, Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun, were already well into their presidential terms.

      Mr Moon can count, therefore, on repeat meetings with Mr Kim, and the two men appear genuinely interested in sustaining their dialogue and making progress on the wide-ranging set of initiatives included in the declaration.

      Mr Kim’s own statements at the summit have also been a vocal argument in favour of identity politics, given his stress on “one nation, one language, one blood”, and his repeated rejection of any future conflict between the Koreas – two themes that will have played well with a South Korean public that traditionally is sympathetic to a narrative of self-confident, although not necessarily strident, nationalism.

      For all of the stress on Koreans determining their common future, there is no escaping the decisive importance of the US.

      The much anticipated Trump-Kim summit in May or early June will be critical in testing the sincerity of the North’s commitment to a peaceful settlement.

      Pyongyang’s professed commitment to “denuclearisation” is likely to be very different from Washington’s demand for “comprehensive, verifiable and irreversible” nuclear disarmament.

      Not only will the Trump-Kim summit be a way of measuring the gap between the US and North Korea on this issue; it will also be an important opportunity to gauge how far the US has developed its own strategy for narrowing the differences with the North.

      • Korea summit sparks cold noodle craze
      • Diplomacy on the menu: How food can shape politics

        President Moon has cleverly and repeatedly allowed Mr Trump to assume credit for the breakthrough in inter-Korean relations, recognising perhaps that boosting the US president’s ego is the best way of minimising the risk of war and keeping Mr Trump engaged in dialogue with the North.

        Whatever the long-term, substantive outcome from the Panmunjeom summit, the event has memorably showcased the political astuteness, diplomatic agility and strategic vision of both Korean leaders.

        The dramatic events of Friday are a reminder that personality and leadership are key ingredients in effecting historical change, sometimes allowing relatively small powers to advance their interests in spite of the competing interests of larger, more influential states.

        Dr John Nilsson-Wright

        Senior Research Fellow for Northeast Asia, Asia-Pacific Programme, Chatham House

        Senior Lecturer in Japanese Politics and International Relations, University of Cambridge

Korea summit: When war ends but peace is out of reach

More than six decades after the guns fell silent at the end of three years of bloody combat on the Korean peninsula, the two Koreas remain in a technical state of war.

Hostilities were ended with an armistice and no peace treaty has ever been signed – although with the recent declaration of a “new era” in relations, that may now be in prospect.

In fact, there are many examples – both historical and contemporary – where physical conflict has stopped but achieving a legal state of peace has proved elusive.

Some might surprise you.

Russia and Japan

The Soviet government declared war on Japan just days before Japan surrendered at the end of World War Two, in August 1945. It went on to annex the Kuril Islands that lie between Japan and Kamchatka in eastern Russia.

Those islands are still the obstacle to agreeing a peace treaty. Russia says its sovereignty over the islands was recognised in post-war agreements, but Japan refuses to renounce its claim to them.

The Soviet Union did not sign the 1951 peace treaty between Japan and the Allied Powers. It did sign a joint declaration ending the state of war and restoring diplomatic relations with Japan in 1956, but the territorial issues have stymied the conclusion of a formal peace treaty.

  • The islands in the way of WW2 peace deal between Russia and Japan

    Allies of World War Two and Germany

    Germany surrendered to its Allied enemies in May 1945. But because it went on to be partitioned between the victorious powers, there was no single German state that they accepted as being the sole representative of the former Reich.

    With the onset of Cold War hostilities, the war technically did not finish until German reunification in 1990.

    • The German schoolboy jailed for writing to the BBC
    • Why unification was achieved in Germany

      The state of war is said to have provided the US with the legal basis for stationing troops in Western Germany.

      Montenegro and Japan

      It took Montenegro nearly a century to make peace with Japan, after it supported Russia in the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese war, which ended in a surprise victory for Japan.

      When Russia and Japan signed a peace treaty, Montenegro was forgotten and following the tumult of World War One, Montenegro became part of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and later Yugoslavia.

      • Montenegro profile

        It was only in 2006, when Montenegro declared itself independent once again, that it finally agreed the peace deal enabling it to establish diplomatic relations with Japan.

        The Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly (UK)

        While some states of war endure for decades, others have lasted centuries – although, in this case, the state of war was entirely forgotten about.

        The war has its roots in 1651 at the end of the English Civil War, when the Dutch fleet sided with the Parliamentarians and demanded reparation for the damage to their fleet by Royalist artillery, based in Scilly.

        No reparations were made so, as most of England was in Parliamentarian hands, the Dutch specifically declared war on the Scilly Isles, accounts suggest. When the Parliamentarians took the islands, the Dutch left and no peace treaty was ever signed.

        Three hundred and thirty-five years later in 1986, this fact was uncovered by Scilly islander and keen historian Roy Duncan, resulting in a visit to the islands by the Dutch ambassador to sign a peace treaty.

        How harrowing it must have been for the Scilly islanders, the ambassador Jonkheer Huydecoper joked, “to know we could have attacked at any moment”.

        Ancient Rome and Carthage

        Going further back, in ancient times Rome and Carthage never agreed to peace after the Romans seized and destroyed Carthage at the end of the Punic wars in 146 BC.

        More than 2,100 years later in 1985, the mayors of modern Rome and Carthage municipality – a modern-day suburb of Tunis – signed a peace treaty and an accompanying pact of friendship.