U .S -North Korea talks: results of the Hanoi summit

    The US-North Korea summit in Hanoi, Vietnam on February 27-28 became the second dialogue platform between representatives of the political leadership of the two countries to resolve the issue of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The parties hoped to reach a mutually acceptable agreement that would satisfy both sides of the negotiation process. But despite this, the negotiations ended ahead of schedule, which means that the participants in the process could not come to a common decision regarding those negotiations. Based on this, the problem of denuclearization remains relevant for the regional security system. Therefore, the issue of non-proliferation and preserving peace on the Korean Peninsula will still remain relevant.

      Foreign policy prospects in the context of a diplomatic dialogue

                                between the DPRK and U.S

    During the last summit in Singapore, the parties determined their priorities for further negotiations. The administration of Donald trump puts its priority on the complete denuclearization of the DPRK, which means the elimination of nuclear and missile infrastructure facilities and technical means for uranium enrichment. Kim Jong-UN makes it his top priority to provide "security guarantees" for his regime, which primarily means curtailing joint military exercises between the US and South Korea, significantly reducing the US military contingent in South Korea, and withdrawing us tactical nuclear weapons.

    The main feature of the negotiation process is that the issues under consideration represent an important role for the national security system of each of the parties.The main and initial priority of Donald trump is the elimination of the DPRK's nuclear Arsenal in the form of three components: nuclear charges, means of delivering nuclear weapons and technical facilities for uranium enrichment. During the talks, the us side will insist on long-term and detailed inspections of the DPRK's nuclear facilities, which include a nuclear test site, ICBM launch sites, storage sites for nuclear charges and means of delivery, as well as uranium enrichment facilities. The process of eliminating nuclear weapons under the supervision of the international community may take approximately six months to 2-3 years of long-term inspections. Monitoring and monitoring of the "return potential" of nuclear weapons, te, will play an important role in future inspections. its complete technical elimination. US actions at the doctrinal level are spelled out in the framework of the strategy for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technologies.

    In terms of tactical significance, the success of the negotiations will play an important role for Donald trump's political bonuses in the next election. But nevertheless, despite the rhetoric of the parties during last year's summit, the prospects for denuclearization of the DPRK remain vague. Nuclear weapons are a guarantee of the preservation and survival of the North Korean regime at the international level. This is due to the following factors: on the one hand, at the political and psychological level, nuclear weapons serve as a mechanism of influence on the international community, where internal propaganda presents Kim Jong-UN as a familiar figure of global politics, on the other hand, nuclear weapons play a deterrent role. Hypothetically, in the event of a military intervention by the United States and its allies, primarily South Korea, the DPRK may retaliate against the territory of South Korea, Japan, and partially the United States, as well as US military bases in the far East. In the event of the overthrow of the regime of Kim Jong-UN, the strike may have a counter-value character, namely, at civilian infrastructure facilities. According to the opinions of military experts, the average number of dead may be 5OO.thousand people. This certainly serves as a deterrent from attacking North Korea, although this action is unlikely and most likely theoretical, since neither the US nor the DPRK is directly interested in a military clash. For Kim Jong-UN, first of all, the priority is to preserve his personal power for the long term. for the United States, this is a huge human and material loss among the Americans themselves and their allies. Therefore, the military scenario, despite the bellicose rhetoric of both sides, remains a vague prospect for implementation. Appeal to military rhetoric is blackmail and a mechanism for foreign policy and diplomatic influence.

    For the North Korean side, the priority during the ongoing diplomatic negotiations is to ensure "security guarantees". The North Korean side under" security guarantees " means the following actions of the United States:

* Termination of annual us and ROK military exercises;

* Reduction or elimination of the US military contingent in South Korea;

* Lifting of sanctions and providing humanitarian assistance.

    For the US, military bases in South Korea play an important role in maintaining a system of" security guarantees " to US allies. Despite the traditional rhetoric of Donald trump that the allies themselves must ensure their national security, the principles of security guarantees to allies are the cornerstone of maintaining US military dominance at the global level. Therefore, the US will not resort to eliminating military bases on the territory of South Korea. US military bases play an important role in the context of containing China, and the physical presence of the US armed forces is necessary to curb the PLA's military growth and activity in the Asia-Pacific region. The prospects of the US military contingent on the Korean Peninsula are also being formed within the framework of the Sino-American military rivalry in the region. Despite the official statements of Donald trump about providing Kim Jong-UN with "security guarantees", the reduction and elimination of military bases is uncertain, the only real action that the American leader can take is to suspend military exercises in the near future.

    The logic of nuclear deterrence dictates that the parties pursue a policy of bargaining through blackmail. But the case of the DPRK may have a slightly different character, in contrast to the classic model of nuclear deterrence strategy, the very absence of nuclear weapons from the DPRK will lead to political stability and the us refusal to engage in offensive diplomacy. A military scenario for the middle East option is highly unlikely, so the main problem of nuclear bargaining lies in the very thinking of Kim Jong-UN, that only nuclear weapons can ensure the survival of the regime.

    At the foreign policy level, the bilateral talks can be described as a victory for Kim Jong-UN. the North Korean leadership took seriously Donald trump's threats to launch pre-emptive strikes in early 2017. Against the background of political blackmail and speculation of threats, the military and political leadership of the DPRK decided not to go to a military confrontation with the United States. The decision to normalize relations with the United States was made to prevent the development of a military scenario.

    The tactical victory of Donald trump lies in his media plane, as the us President showed Congress and the public that he is able to solve the problem of the Korean Peninsula and won bonuses for the upcoming elections. If successful negotiations are held and agreements are reached on the Korean Peninsula, the US President may be nominated for the Nobel peace prize, which will certainly give him weight for future elections.

    Domestic economic and socio-economic transformation is also important for the political process stabilizations. So, before the start of the second summit, Donald trump repeatedly stated that " North Korea will become a missile, but another - an economic missile." Thus, the American leader hinted at internal reforms, primarily economic transformations. One of the reasons for choosing Vietnam as the venue for the second summit was the country's economic and diplomatic experience, during which Vietnam restored diplomatic relations with the United States and whose economy switched to a market economy. For the United States, this is the most acceptable and final scenario in which Kim Jong-UN can adopt and implement the experience of Vietnam's economic reforms and still maintain his rule. The policy of economic liberalization and openness of the DPRK will lead to the integration of the country into the system of regional relations based on dynamic trade and economic cooperation and reduce the aspects of military security.

 

                            The results of the summit in Hanoi

    The summit in Hanoi ended ahead of schedule, during which the parties did not reach a common conclusion. According to Donald trump, Kim Jong-UN considered only the option of partial denuclearization and complete lifting of sanctions, which the American side could not agree with.

    It is also a remarkable fact that during the summit, Donald trump often spoke in his speeches about the need for North Korea to adopt economic reforms according to the Vietnam scenario. The US President has repeatedly stressed the significant economic potential of North Korea, and in any case, we can say that the second unofficial diplomatic strategy of the US in relation to the DPRK is to promote the policy of economic liberalization. But the leadership of the DPRK is aware of the social and political changes that can occur inside the country, which are far from a happy outcome for the political elite. Perhaps, in this case, an important role is played by the history of a large-scale famine that took place in the second half of the 90s under the rule of Kim Jong-Il. The discovery and receipt by ordinary North Koreans of alternative information about this event may undermine the legitimacy of the authorities. This may be one of the main reasons for the possible collapse of the Kim Jong-UN regime.

    Kim Jong-UN sees the problems of economic reform policy in a slightly different way. Kim Jong-UN's main strategy is to achieve uninterrupted supplies of goods and material through the complete lifting of sanctions, i.e., full-fledged trade with the PRC and the provision of humanitarian assistance. These actions, in turn, will help to obtain the necessary material and economic support without the need for economic liberalization, which may lead to further socio-political instability.

To preserve the regime, the North Korean leader will demonstrate loyalty in the near future and after the us elections, and will not take any provocative actions. Kim Jong-UN's main policy is to expect a change in the White house administration, the us presidential election in 2020. First, Kim Jong-UN will not implement any significant changes in the domestic political system, not according to the Chinese or Vietnamese scenario, as the American side would like. Secondly, nuclear weapons remain an essential foreign policy deterrent and guarantee the security and preservation of the North Korean regime.

    Thus, at the end of the summit, we can draw the following conclusions: the policy of threats and blackmail has opened up opportunities for a strategic dialogue between the parties. The overall strategy of Kim Jong-UN was to stretch the expectation of the presidency of Donald trump: Kim Jong-UN proposed holding talks, and he also stretched the negotiation process, and also played an important political and psychological factor, since the leaders of both sides called each other" friends", which in turn reduces the level of psychological tension. From the point of view of nuclear diplomacy, this is an absolute victory for the North Korean leader. For the United States, the summit has become a strategic opportunity for a dialogue platform, if the denuclearization of the Peninsula is successfully completed within the framework of the non-proliferation doctrine. The overall strategy of the United States, in addition to its nuclear component, is to maintain and give momentum to policy implementation economic liberalization, as Donald trump himself has repeatedly stated. However, the policy of desirable economic liberalization faces two contradictions: the nuclear issue puts the North Korean leader in the epicenter international attention, and in the case of renouncing nuclear weapons and pursuing a policy of economic liberalization, Kim Jong-UN loses the international "authority" of his power, turning into a local king. Also, economic liberalization can challenge the ideological monopoly, which will cause socio-political uncertainty within the country.

    The DPRK will maintain its nuclear potential, however, the country's military-political leadership will not take any open and provocative actions. Most likely, the DPRK will focus on developing technology for miniature warheads to be installed on ICBMs. This, in turn, will cause a round of further diplomatic friction between the participants in the denuclearization process.

 

                       

                                            CHAPTER 2