In an effort to lay the groundwork for direct talks between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, CIA Director Mike Pompeo made a top-secret visit to North Korea over Easter weekend, The Washington Post revealed Tuesday. Acting as an envoy for Trump after he was nominated to be secretary of state, Pompeo also met with Kim himself, according to my colleagues.
On Tuesday, Trump had already alluded to the meeting when he spoke of direct talks with North Korea “at very high levels.”
Soon afterwards, he tweeted that the meeting went “very smoothly and a good relationship was formed” and details of the summit were being worked out.
The details of the summit and what will be discussed remain up in the air, but here are three of of the key issues:
Where will the U.S.-North Korean summit take place?
Trump said on Tuesday that the upcoming summit between him and Kim would take place in one of five locations that were currently under consideration. None of those possible locations were in the United States, according to the president.
The search for the right summit destination may also depend on factors that do not usually constrain international talks: the possible lack of an appropriate form of transportation, as The Post’s David Nakamura writes. While the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea or nearby China and Russia would be possible locations, other analysts have suggested countries that have previously acted as an intermediary between the United States and North Korea, such as Singapore, Switzerland or Sweden. But there might be a problem:
“That has raised a question about how Kim, who made his first trip since coming to power outside North Korea to Beijing in an armored train last month, would get there.” Nakamura writes. “If Kim took his own plane, stopping to refuel on the way to any summit could also prove embarrassing by highlighting the limits of the aircraft – and where to stop would be complicated, as well, given the number of countries that have put sanctions on North Korea.”
What would denuclearization on the Korean peninsula entail?
During his visit to Beijing at the end of March, Kim was quoted by China’s official news agency as saying that “the issue of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula can be resolved, if South Korea and the United States respond to our efforts with goodwill, create an atmosphere of peace and stability while taking progressive and synchronous measures for the realization of peace.”
But it is unclear whether both sides interpret their aim to achieve a “denuclearization on the peninsula” in the same way. With his remarks in March, Kim may also have been suggesting that he seeks some security assurances from the United States and other nations with nuclear arsenals that could theoretically reach North Korea – a condition the United States would be unlikely to comply with, given that this would likely entail withdrawing missiles from much of the Pacific region, as my colleague Anna Fifield recently noted.
To some in Washington, “the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,” as Trump tweeted late last month, means Kim handing over his nuclear weapons and missile systems and allowing international inspectors to check that the regime is keeping its word.
To Pyongyang, it means something very, very different. It means mutual steps to get rid of nuclear weapons, including requiring the United States to take down the nuclear umbrella it has put up over South Korea and Japan. That is a difference in definition that could toll a death knell for the summit before it even starts.
A different question is whether Pyongyang will stick to its frequently repeated demand that U.S. troops would need to leave South Korea as part of a denuclearization deal. The U.S. military alliance with South Korea has been in place ever since the 1950-53 Korean War, with about 28,000 troops currently stationed in South Korea that conduct regular joint exercises with South Korean troops.
Will South Korea and North Korea be able to negotiate a peace deal?
Before the Kim-Pompeo meeting was revealed on Wednesday, South Korea said that it was considering a peace agreement with North Korea. (The two countries are currently preparing a separate summit.) Both nations have emphasized their willingness to work on a deal in the past, but no detailed plans were ever negotiated.
A peace deal would replace an armistice that has been in place for decades and that essentially ensures a truce between both countries. North Korea and South Korea have officially still been at war since the 1950-1953 Korean War.
“People don’t realize the Korean War has not ended,” Trump said on Tuesday. He voiced support for plans to strike a peace deal between the two neighboring countries, but only if North Korea agreed to denuclearization.
How any such peace deal would really be negotiated is still unclear, however. South Korea itself is not a party to the armistice that was negotiated by a U.S.-led United Nations Command, the “Chinese People’s volunteers,” and North Korea. Hence, even if South and North Korea would want to announce the official end of the war, any such move would have to be preceded by complex negotiations in which the United States would have to play a key role. China would likely also want to have a say on any final agreement.
That may have been the point of the March meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and North Korean leader Kim, after which my colleagues Fifield and Emily Rauhala noted:
“The message to the United States: Any moves on North Korea must go through Xi.”
