Positives from Hanoi summit

By Sandip Kumar Mishra

It was expected that the Hanoi summit would be better than the Singapore summit but apparently it ended up being worse. People who were looking for a "big" or "small" deal in Hanoi could rightly be disappointed.

The skepticism is also right that even though Trump left Hanoi with only positive things to say about Kim Jong-un and North Korea, the U.S. may react differently in the coming days. It is also a matter of concern that the North Korean statement after the summit appears more accusatory and uncompromising. There are a few basic gaps between the U.S. and North Korean statements about whether North Korea demanded full or partial removal of sanctions and what the U.S. demands were.

Anyway, it could be considered a derailment or at least a deadlock in the U.S.-North Korea engagement on nuclear and missile issues and both countries may begin raising their voices again toward each other.

It could also be said that the Singapore summit was better as at least both leaders had their first direct meeting and agreed on a common vision. But the Hanoi summit was worse as neither country agreed on any joint declaration. After eight months, it seems that both the U.S. and North Korea were in the same place they started from.

However, it's important to underline some positives from the meeting. First, another summit between the U.S. and North Korea within eight months of the Singapore summit was a clear indication that both parties have been trying to resolve the issue. Amid many important happenings, such as the U.S.-China contest, the Venezuela issue, and India-Pakistan tension, Trump went ahead with the scheduled meeting that was also in a far-away country such as Vietnam must be appreciated.

Second, the Hanoi summit is also better in terms of the extensive dialogue which both countries had at the highest level. Both leaders spent several hours over the last two days in different ways talking to each other. It would have definitely led each other to know about their respective positions and preferences. It's important for any deal in the future that both parties should have more exchanges and the Hanoi summit provided one such platform.

Third, it also must be underlined that it's mature on the part of both countries to depart from the Hanoi summit with not too bitter words about each other. Actually, the Singapore summit had at least a joint declaration and it was easier to be positive but even though they don't have a joint declaration from the Hanoi summit, they still had positives and that is remarkable. It shows a growing maturity between the two countries.

Fourth, the absence of a joint declaration also means that both countries have reached the core of the problem and it must be understood that it's not going to be easy going forward.

The future course could be more complex but if both sides are going to keep restraint and positivity in their disagreements, future agreements could be possible. Engagement and resolutions of a long-standing and complex issue such as the North Korean nuclear program would have several such situations. The Hanoi summit is not a failure if one sees things from the above perspective.

Fifth, resolution of the North Korean nuclear and missile programs could be achieved only through building trust between the U.S. and North Korea and as mentioned by Trump in the press conference after his talks with the North Korea leader, postponement of a deal is better than a bad deal.

It could also be added that a postponement of a deal is also better than having a deal which is not being followed through on and a deal which accompanies lack of trust between the parties. Thus, the disappointment from the Hanoi summit must not be overhyped. Of course, this point is based on the premise that it's not a "no deal" but just the "postponement of a deal."

After enumerating the positives of the Hanoi summit, it's also important to caution that the lack of trust between the two countries is still substantial. Both sides have to be more aware that overemphasis on short-term mechanical reciprocity might not lead them to any deal. It's important for both leaders and more importantly for the U.S. that since they have invested a lot in their engagements with each other, prolongation of mistrust may lead to a more bitter future between them.

Both the leaders also need to realize that diplomacy is not just about the top leaders having big shows in the different cities of the world but it essentially means that details and the course of forward movements must be deliberated beforehand by officials of both countries before the top leaders meet. In the last eight months, North Korea has been reluctant to do so and it might be a matter of serious concern.

Thus, it's still possible to cautiously appreciate the fact that North Korea is going to continue the moratorium on its nuclear and missiles tests and both countries are going to keep talking about their differences in the future. It's basically an unsuccessful battle but it does not mean a final defeat in the war.

Sandip Kumar Mishra (sandipmishra10@gmail.com) is Associate Professor at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.