North Korea

Kim Jong Un summit: Could Donald Trump really have earned himself a Nobel peace prize?

Or will the Singapore meeting simply be a photo-op that goes nowhere?

Everyone, including Barack Obama himself, was a bit embarrassed when the former US President was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, barely a year after coming to power. Now, two years into the tenure of his successor, Donald Trump, could a second Peace Prize be headed to the White House? Will Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong Un in Singapore on Tuesday help end a conflict that is seven decades old?

It seemed impossible to contemplate. Could Trump, a man whose presidency has been marked by racism, sexism, an investigation into whether his campaign colluded with Russians and a series of ugly battles with American allies, end up making a lasting contribution to global peace?

This is after all the man who insisted that his nuclear button is ”bigger” than North Korea’s. This is the man who spends the early morning tweeting angrily about what he saw on TV. This is the US president who insisted on calling North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, “little rocket man”. This is the “leader of the free world” whose aides cannot stop talking about and treating him like a toddler.

Still, it is impossible to deny the power of the visuals that came out of Singapore, with Trump shaking hands and then sitting to discuss the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula with Kim. Trump had to desist from grinning, but Kim had no such compunction, breaking out into a broad smile the minute he met the US president – and thereby achieved something his father and grandfather had failed to do.

What actually came of the summit?

The two leaders signed a joint statement in which the US agreed to establish official diplomatic relations with North Korea while Kim affirmed his commitment to the “complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.” There was little in the way of specifics. Indeed, it is unclear even what denuclearization means: The US tends to see it as North Korea giving up its nuclear programme, while Pyongyang understands it to mean Washington will also end its alliance with South Korea, including withdrawing the 30,000 American troops on the peninsula.

But the overall impression was of a successful summit, in which Trump promised to let North Korea open up if Kim could show forward movement on getting rid of his nuclear programme. At a press conference afterwards, Trump elaborated on his new relationship with the “Supreme Leader” of North Korea.

“I want to thank Chairman Kim for taking the first bold step toward a bright new future for his people... My meeting with Chairman Kim was honest, direct, and productive. We got to know each other well in a very confined period of time,” Trump said. “It’s a very great moment in the history of the world. Chairman Kim is on his way back to North Korea and I know for a fact that as soon as he arrives he will start a process that will make a lot of people very happy and very safe.”

The US president then went on to address a press conference that was classic Trump. When asked about Kim’s human rights violations, Trump said he was a “very talented” person who was able to run his country. When asked why he believed that the North Koreans would actually follow through on their promises, Trump said it was because he was the one negotiating. He also pointed out that he had not slept for 25 hours.

Interestingly, Trump already spoke of what he would be getting out of the deal in addition to the nuclear commitments, even though there were no specifics on how the denuclearisation would be verified. “I want to get our soldiers out. I want to bring our soldiers back home. We have 32,000 soldiers in South Korea. I would like to be able to bring them back home,” he said. “That’s not part of the equation. At some point, I hope it would be. We will stop the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money. Unless and until we see the future negotiations is not going along like it should. We will be saving a tremendous amount of money.”

This harks back to the Trump that was occasionally seen during the presidential campaign, the candidate who argued that America was trying to do too much internationally and should instead pull back its troops and let the world police itself. Trump has not done much in the way of actually following through on those promises – indeed he has continued US involvement in Afghanistan and West Asia – but it seems to still be a talking point.

What happens now?

The details will have to be worked out in due course, starting with what exactly Kim means by complete denuclearisation and how that will be verified. Trump was vague when asked who would be permitted into North Korea to confirm that it was indeed dismantling its nuclear programme, though he said that Kim is destroying a major missile engine testing site, even though that is not in the agreement.

If Kim does go ahead in a manner that the US is comfortable with and Trump follows through on his promises to pull back troops from South Korea and even Japan, it could reshape Asian geopolitics. South Korea has so far been positive about these efforts, but any withdrawal of American power from the region would leave it deeply vulnerable to Kim – while also giving China a bigger role to play.

This could have a lasting impact on India as well, one in which New Delhi’s new positioning as a major player in an Indo-Pacific theatre becomes important. But all of that depends on whether the good will and positive words from the Singapore summit actually translates into action. Both leaders seemed to believe it would, but this would not be the first time that a much touted global summit ended up being little more than a photo-op that reduced tensions without making much of a dent on reality.

For now, though, Trump can point to an actually historic accomplishment amid the many battles and crises his administration has both caused and had to deal with. And if things do indeed work out as promised in the joint statement, he may even actually have hope of a medal headed in his direction from Norway.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at
Sponsored Content BY 

Do you really need to use that plastic straw?

The hazards of single-use plastic items, and what to use instead.

In June 2018, a distressed whale in Thailand made headlines around the world. After an autopsy it’s cause of death was determined to be more than 80 plastic bags it had ingested. The pictures caused great concern and brought into focus the urgency of the fight against single-use plastic. This term refers to use-and-throw plastic products that are designed for one-time use, such as takeaway spoons and forks, polythene bags styrofoam cups etc. In its report on single-use plastics, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has described how single-use plastics have a far-reaching impact in the environment.

Dense quantity of plastic litter means sights such as the distressed whale in Thailand aren’t uncommon. Plastic products have been found in the airways and stomachs of hundreds of marine and land species. Plastic bags, especially, confuse turtles who mistake them for jellyfish - their food. They can even exacerbate health crises, such as a malarial outbreak, by clogging sewers and creating ideal conditions for vector-borne diseases to thrive. In 1988, poor drainage made worse by plastic clogging contributed to the devastating Bangladesh floods in which two-thirds of the country was submerged.

Plastic litter can, moreover, cause physiological harm. Burning plastic waste for cooking fuel and in open air pits releases harmful gases in the air, contributing to poor air quality especially in poorer countries where these practices are common. But plastic needn’t even be burned to cause physiological harm. The toxic chemical additives in the manufacturing process of plastics remain in animal tissue, which is then consumed by humans. These highly toxic and carcinogenic substances (benzene, styrene etc.) can cause damage to nervous systems, lungs and reproductive organs.

The European Commission recently released a list of top 10 single-use plastic items that it plans to ban in the near future. These items are ubiquitous as trash across the world’s beaches, even the pristine, seemingly untouched ones. Some of them, such as styrofoam cups, take up to a 1,000 years to photodegrade (the breakdown of substances by exposure to UV and infrared rays from sunlight), disintegrating into microplastics, another health hazard.

More than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to discourage the use of single-use plastics. Morocco and Rwanda have emerged as inspiring success stories of such policies. Rwanda, in fact, is now among the cleanest countries on Earth. In India, Maharashtra became the 18th state to effect a ban on disposable plastic items in March 2018. Now India plans to replicate the decision on a national level, aiming to eliminate single-use plastics entirely by 2022. While government efforts are important to encourage industries to redesign their production methods, individuals too can take steps to minimise their consumption, and littering, of single-use plastics. Most of these actions are low on effort, but can cause a significant reduction in plastic waste in the environment, if the return of Olive Ridley turtles to a Mumbai beach are anything to go by.

To know more about the single-use plastics problem, visit Planet or Plastic portal, National Geographic’s multi-year effort to raise awareness about the global plastic trash crisis. From microplastics in cosmetics to haunting art on plastic pollution, Planet or Plastic is a comprehensive resource on the problem. You can take the pledge to reduce your use of single-use plastics, here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of National Geographic, and not by the Scroll editorial team.