Throughout Donald Trump’s election campaign, he seemed to consistently reiterate his nationalist pride, and his desire to place America, and it’s inhabitants, at the forefront of his focus. This seemed to resonate with voters and, during his tenure as President, he seems to have adhered to this ideology. He also seems to be striving to make sure other world leaders help him in this quest, with his opposition to Kim Jong-un a key example of this. He seemed to aim to alter Jong-un’s stances and, whilst both leaders may have contrasting philosophies on an array of circumstances, both now seem to be utilising negotiations to make advancements. With the pair having recently held talks in Singapore, they may be laying the foundations for a more efficient and productive working relationship. Considering their nationalistic traits, this may also signal an opportunity for them to highlight a different capability, and show how varied they may be as politicians.
Both leaders may have already attained plaudits for their handling of the situation, altering their original stances in their quest to create an innovative agreement, which benefits all. While these viewpoints may have gained them support within their respective countries, highlighting their willingness to compromise may be more worthy of plaudits. Considering the current climate, both may also be required to appeal to other nations’ populations, and gain increased support across the globe. As such, they may be able to use this opportunity to emphasise their leadership skills and, if they may also be able to inspire other world leaders, and the public, to act similarly during complex predicaments, they may be able to meet their goal.
Compromise may have occurred on both sides throughout negotiations thus far and, whilst influencers from the US seem to have suggested these talks may solely be the beginning, it may signal a fruitful future. For the US, their overarching goal seems to surround North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, and thus they may be aiming to alter Jong-un’s stance on the matter. This may ultimately have a wider impact on global stability, and with similar debates having occurred across the globe, including in Britain with Trident, it may be a discussion which resonates with all. The US succeeding in these talks may therefore be emphasised, and with Jong-un seemingly striving to improve the North Korean economy, he may be willing to provide assistance. If the US may offer their support to Jong-un in his quest, both sides may reap dividends, and thus the importance of following this pathway as opposed to the alternative may be reiterated.
These negotiations may, therefore, be at the forefront of focus, potentially creating an array of productive repercussions; yet, it may be important to focus on how this ultimately came to fruition. A number of influencers may have had a productive impact on the predicament, perhaps advancing both sides’ position. The most notable example of this might be Mike Pompeo, who has met Kim twice in recent months, and may have played a key role in creating a more viable pathway for the North Korean leader to convene with Trump. With events such as the Winter Olympics also important in bypassing boundaries, it seems several factors may have also contributed to ensuring these talks occur.
Ultimately, creating the meeting itself may be a poignant event in both nations’ history, and if Trump may be able to alter Jong-un’s stance on nuclear capabilities, he may consolidate his own legacy whilst creating a more stable and coherent environment for the rest of the globe. Considering he has also signalled they may sign an agreement to formally end the Korean predicament, which ended as a truce in 1953, the foundations may be laid for a productive future. Yet, the challenge may now be to make sure innovation occurs, and if both sides relish the challenge, they may achieve their goals. This may in turn filter across to Europe, and stabilise other events such as Brexit, and thus the negotiations may have a wider effect than originally anticipated.
How might these talks motivate other world leaders to use negotiations to advance their causes?