President Donald Trump made history Sunday by becoming the first sitting U.S. president to set foot on North Korean soil. But the way the summit came about was no less significant.Trump’s visit to the demilitarized zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea had been planned for some time with Seoul’s assistance. But according to public remarks by Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump’s offer and Kim’s acceptance of the meeting both came at a moment’s notice.The unexpected summit was a clear demonstration of growing rapprochement between the two leaders. However, it remains unclear whether the warming ties between the two will lead to improved relations between their countries. The future of U.S.-North Korea relations is likely to depend on whether the sides can resolve the nuclear issue diplomatically.Revival of diplomacy
  
Since the failed Hanoi summit in February, Washington and Seoul have been seeking ways to revive diplomacy with North Korea, and many experts saw Trump’s visit to South Korea as the last best chance to salvage the process. The two allies appear to have accomplished that mission with North Korea’s commitment, according to Trump, to resume talks “over the next two or three weeks.”FILE – President Donald Trump and South Korean President Moon Jae-in, left, walk up to view North Korea from the Korean Demilitarized Zone from Observation Post Ouellette at Camp Bonifas in South Korea, June 30, 2019.The revival of diplomacy will likely contribute to reducing tensions between Washington and Pyongyang. It is also liable to contain Pyongyang’s aggression — something that Washington and Seoul badly need. When Pyongyang fired a barrage of missiles two months ago, in an apparent show of frustration and anger with the outcome of the Hanoi summit, Seoul and Washington desperately downplayed the significance of the North Korean move.    Kim Jong Un’s dilemmaThe latest summit is likely to help Kim gain stature on the international stage, just as the previous two summits did. It could also embolden Kim to pursue his negotiating strategy of dealing with Trump directly while trying to avoid working-level talks.However, it leaves Kim in a dilemma. Trump’s walkout from the Hanoi summit was largely seen as an embarrassing defeat for the North Korean leader. Since then, Kim has shuffled his negotiating team and set a new condition for future talks with the U.S: In a speech to the Supreme People’s Assembly in April, Kim vowed not to meet again with Trump unless Washington came up with a new approach by the end of the year.By accepting Trump’s invitation to the DMZ, Kim has reversed himself without any face-saving justification. In fact, just two days before Trump’s visit to South Korea, North Korea repeated its demand that the U.S. change its attitude, reminding Washington of the April ultimatum. Analysts will be fascinated to see how the North’s state media portray the latest Trump-Kim summit.South Korea’s role as mediatorAfter the Hanoi summit, North Korea shifted its stance toward South Korea from one of cooperation to open hostility and began working to undermine South Korean efforts to mediate between Washington and Pyongyang. Seoul, meanwhile, has been pushing Pyongyang to change its course, and the DMZ summit could give those efforts needed momentum.FILE – U.S. President Donald Trump, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in leave after a meeting at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom, South Korea, June 30, 2019.South Korean President Moon Jae-in reportedly employed intensive diplomatic efforts to persuade Trump to include his country in his G-20 itinerary, and he succeeded in bringing Trump to the DMZ — a potent symbol of conflict and division.However, it remains to be seen whether Moon has successfully fended off the North Korean diplomatic offensive against his country. Critics say Seoul’s diplomatic gains from the weekend visit will not be as big as they appeared to be, since it was Trump, not Moon, who invited Kim to the DMZ.Moon briefly met with Kim when the North Korean leader and Trump greeted each other before the summit. But Moon did not participate in the summit. Critics argue Seoul could even see its role as a mediator between Washington and Pyongyang diminishing as Trump deepens his personal engagement with Kim.    Prospects for nuclear talksMany difficulties lie ahead for negotiators from both sides.First, Washington and Pyongyang differ over how to achieve denuclearization. Pyongyang demands a step-by-step approach in which Washington would reward each step Pyongyang takes toward denuclearization with an equivalent easing of sanctions.FILE – This photo, taken Dec. 18, 2007, and released June 27, 2008, by the official Chinese news agency Xinhua, shows the cooling tower at the Yongbyon nuclear complex near Pyongyang, North Korea.So far, Washington has refused to accept that approach. Instead, it has been insisting on a “simultaneous and parallel” movement toward denuclearization. Some media in Seoul and Washington wrongly portray this position as equivalent to the incremental approach demanded by Pyongyang, but this difference is one of the reasons the Hanoi summit collapsed.Washington and Pyongyang also differ over the significance of the dismantlement of North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear complex. Kim has offered to dismantle the complex in return for sanctions relief, a suggestion that has been rejected by Washington.Despite the pomp and circumstance of the DMZ theatrics between Trump and Kim, there is deep skepticism among many in Washington over whether North Korea will ever abandon its nuclear weapons in a manner acceptable to the United States.
…

Protesters and riot police returned to the streets of Hong Kong early Monday to mark the 22nd anniversary of the city’s reunification with China.Thousands encircled the city’s government complex in the afternoon as a small group attempted to break into the legislature, while police waited inside and fired pepper spray through the gates.Protesters used umbrellas, goggles, masks and plastic wrap on their limbs to shield their identities from police and to protect themselves from police pepper spray as they attempted to ram the legislature’s door open and break windows near the entrance.Police try to disperse protesters near a flag-raising ceremony for the anniversary of Hong Kong handover to China in Hong Kong, July 1, 2019.Elsewhere in the city a mass march began at 2:30 p.m. taking protesters from Victoria Park to an area near the government headquarters.While the protests coincided with the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover, they were triggered by a controversial legislative bill that would allow for criminal extradition to China.The bill has ignited mass protests for most of the month of June, continuing after Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam said she would suspend the bill and apologized. It is set to expire next year with the legislative session.Anti-extradition bill protesters march during the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China in Hong Kong, July 1, 2019.On Monday, Lam said at a speech she had learned to be more “responsive to the aspirations, sentiments and opinions of the community.”“The first and most basic step to take is to change the government’s style of governance to make it more open and accommodating,” Lam said. “We also need to reform the way we listen to public views.”Lam, however, has failed to withdraw the bill permanently or meet other protest demands including an inquiry into police tactics at a violent demonstration on June 12.She is now facing her lowest popularity ranking since taking office in 2017, according to a survey by the University of Hong Kong.Protesters try to break into the Legislative Council building where riot police are seen, during the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China in Hong Kong, July 1, 2019.Protester Leo Wong said many residents mistrust the government, which has promised to cancel unpopular initiatives in the past only for them to change their mind later.“I understand that people may be saying suspension is the same as withdrawal … but why the protesters are still angry about this is people were tricked by the government for so many times over so many years,” Wong told VOA.He and many other protesters also spoke of their fears that Hong Kong was losing its autonomy to China, promised until 2047. Citizens are currently protected by the Basic Law, a set of civil and political rights considered Hong Kong’s mini constitution, but they fear this may be eroded.“There is an actual deadline of basic law until 2047, but we aren’t sure they will honor that deadline. Even though we are having one country, two systems now. … They try to erode our freedom and encroach into Hong Kong,” Wong said.A protester who was pepper sprayed is detained during the anniversary of Hong Kong’s handover to China in Hong Kong, July 1, 2019.Earlier Monday, police fired pepper spray and used batons to keep thousands of protesters from charging an early morning flag raising ceremony that marks every anniversary of the city’s handover from the United Kingdom in 1997.A government spokesperson said 25 protesters and police had been injured as of 11 a.m. Monday.Protesters also took down the flag of China and replaced it with a black version of Hong Kong’s flag, which features the white Bauhinia flower in the center.The flag-raising ceremony draws a small number of protesters every year, but Monday’s rally was far greater than expected.The extradition debate has seen the government unwittingly reignite Hong Kong’s protest movement, and a desire for the direct election of its leader, five years after 2014’s so-called Umbrella Movement democracy protests came to an end.
…

National security hawks who normally side with U.S. President Donald Trump on foreign policy issues are up in arms over his announcement on Saturday that he would indefinitely delay the imposition of tariffs on $300 billion of Chinese goods and relax restrictions on U.S. firms doing business with Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei.In a news conference Saturday that followed a bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Group of 20 summit in Osaka, Japan, Trump said: “U.S. companies can sell their equipment to Huawei. We’re talking about equipment where there’s no great national security problem with it.’Entity List’This represents a sharp reversal by Trump, whose administration on May 16 added the company to the “Entity List” kept by the federal Commerce Department. Inclusion on that list is viewed as a sort of death penalty for foreign firms, because it prevents U.S. companies from doing business with them without express permission from the Commerce Department.In an announcement at the time, the department’s Bureau of Industry and Security said, “The U.S. Government has determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that Huawei has been involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.”The company has been caught stealing trade secrets, evading U.S. bans on transferring technology to Iran, and is suspected — though never proven — to be an arm of the Chinese intelligence services.Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, an ally of the president, appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and told moderator Chuck Todd, “I’m very concerned about Huawei. I think they are a threat to our national security.”FILE – Sen. John Barrasso, left, walks to a meeting on Capitol Hill, Feb. 11, 2019, in Washington. In the background is Sen. Rob Portman.Asked if he thought Trump had made a mistake, Barrasso said, “I know the president is a dealmaker. He is working on this. I would not allow Huawei, certainly, into our country. He’s making decisions about what our country and companies can sell overseas, to Huawei.”To me, Huawei in the United States would be like a Trojan horse ready to steal more information from us,” he added.There is an important distinction to be made in the discussions surrounding U.S. policy toward Huawei that often gets lost.’Back door’ accessA major concern that many in the national security field have is that if Huawei equipment is used to build new 5G mobile data delivery systems, the Chinese government might be able to pressure the company to give Beijing’s intelligence services “back door” access to secure U.S. systems. A law on the books in China requires private companies to assist the intelligence services on demand.However, in moves that predate the Trump administration — and which were recently strengthened — the federal government had already taken steps to prevent telecommunications firms in the U.S. from deploying equipment made by Huawei. In fact, the government’s focus on information security with regard to Huawei has been more focused on trying to persuade strategic partners and allies that the U.S. shares intelligence with to blacklist the company in their own countries.The changes Trump announced over the weekend are different: He suggested easing recently imposed restrictions on U.S. companies selling their goods to Huawei — particularly intermediate goods like computer processors, circuit boards and the like, that the Chinese company needs to build its phones and networking equipment.Huawei’s inclusion on the Entity List barred it from purchasing key parts for its equipment and from licensing vital software, like Google’s Android operating system, which runs on all of the millions of smartphones that Huawei sells each year.FILE – A man uses his smartphone outside of a shop selling Huawei products at a shopping mall in Beijing, China, May 29, 2019.New policy yet unclearAs of Sunday afternoon, it remained unclear exactly what sort of things U.S. firms would be able to sell to Huawei under the administration’s new policy, and how the Commerce Department would make its determinations.The president’s decision to couple his trade war with Beijing with the Huawei ban is infuriating to many in the national security community, because it drags what they see as a pure national defense issue into the far more transactional world of trade negotiations.“If President Trump has agreed to reverse recent sanctions against Huawei, he has made a catastrophic mistake,” Florida Sen. Marco Rubio wrote on Twitter Saturday. “It will destroy the credibility of his administration’s warnings about the threat posed by the company. No one will ever again take them seriously.”Rubio went on to pledge that if Trump does reverse himself on Huawei, lawmakers would pass a new ban themselves, and predicted that both the House and Senate would do so with majorities large enough to override a presidential veto.On Sunday, the administration rushed White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow onto the political talk shows to assure the president’s critics that any relaxation of the administration’s stance toward Huawei would have no national security implications.“Regarding the Huawei story, let me just try to clarify that, there will be sales from American companies, but only in the sense of the general merchandise, things that are available in other places around the world,” Kudlow told Margaret Brennan on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “Anything to do with national security concerns will not receive a new license from the Commerce Department.”The administration’s assurances only went so far in comforting lawmakers concerned about the president’s about-face with regard to Huawei.South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a reliable supporter of the president in most cases, said he was withholding judgment on the question of whether the change is a good move.FILE – Sen. Lindsey Graham speaks to reporters after a briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 21, 2019.“I don’t know what he agreed to regarding exceptions to the ban,” he said on “Face the Nation.” “If they’re minor exceptions, that’s OK, but if we’re selling Huawei major technology, that would be a mistake. So I don’t know.”“It’s clearly a concession,” Graham said. “There’s some type of equipment we could sell to Huawei and other Chinese companies that would not hurt our national security.”But there’s a reason that Huawei has been on the banned list. It is a Chinese company owned by the Chinese government deeply controlled by the military that could be used to hijack technology, data and steal trade secrets and other things. So, I don’t know the nature of the exception,” he said.”There will be a lot of pushback if this is a major concession. If it’s a minor concession, I think it’s part of the overall deal,” Graham added. 
…