Earlier this month, at a NATO summit in London, Donald Trump said that „we have peace“ with North Korea and that he has a better „personal relationship“ with Kim Jong Un than the dictator with someone else „in the world.“ On an important day in Singapore, Trump shook Kim`s hand, played a false trailer on the economic premium that awaits a nuclear-weapon-free North Korea, and joined the North Korean leader in making a written commitment to work for peace and denuclearization. Unlike traditional leaders` summits, Singapore is „first in a meeting and agree, then filling in the details,“ Brooks said, adding that it was a smart method „given the personalities involved and their approach to central leadership, top-down decision-making.“ Now let`s get to the concept of a „peace regime.“ The etymological origin of the „regime“ is the Latin regime (domination, leadership, government). A regime is governed by a constitution that establishes governance principles, standards, rules and procedures. If the Constitution is replaced, the regime is, as in the various regimes of France. A new constitution could also lead to new rules on the place of power, as shown by the difference between the Fourth Republic of South Korea and the Fifth Republic of South Korea. That is why a peace regime can be defined as a set of norms, principles, rules and procedures that maintain, create and create peace. „The failure of the [Hanoi] summit seems to have sparked a debate within North Korea about whether Kim`s [with Trump]was worth it,“ and „it went to the point where their position hardened,“ Wit said. „All indications are that they will not return to the negotiating table, or at least that they will not return to the negotiating table in the near future.“ The Trump administration has yet to convince Kim that he is safer without nuclear weapons than with them. Pressure can be maxim. Engagement can be maximized. But one of the lessons of the past three years is that neither seems to exceed the value Kim attributes to his nukes. Another possibility is a six-part configuration involving the two Koreas, the United States, Japan, China and Russia. One way forward would be to involve all parties, as in the ongoing six-party talks; The late President Kim Dae-jung, however, had argued that the two Korean sides could sign an agreement with the other four countries acting as third-party witnesses.
Others argued that the problems between the North and the South could be solved by involving them in a multilateral forum on the security of six nations. Then there could be a tripartite peace regime between South Korea, North Korea and the United States, a formula defended by the late Kim Il Sung, or the two Koreas could sign an agreement with the United States, which will serve as the third. This would be similar to the Camp David agreements between Egypt and Israel, which were witnessed by the United States. North Korea also raised the possibility of tripartite talks with North Korea, China and the United States. Amid escalating tensions on the peninsula, Jimmy Carter is the first former U.S. president to visit North Korea, where he meets Kim Il-sung, the country`s founder. Carter`s trip paves the way for a bilateral agreement between the United States and North Korea. Kim died weeks later and was replaced by his son Kim Jong-il. GRIT has two main pillars. First, the initiating country should have sufficient national security to gradually take risks of reducing tensions.
Consequently, conciliatory initiatives should not significantly compromise the country`s ability to defend itself, discourage opponents and, if necessary, take revenge.