Kim Jong Un will likely offer a few locations for summit location: 1) Pyongyang, 2) Beijing, 3) DMZ.
Why Pyongyang? (from NK's perspective)
If they are looking for a "Neutral" country like Switzerland or Sweden, then it's wrong thinking. The "Six-Party Talks" on denuclearization was hosted in Beijing capital, which was considered "neutral" grounds for US/SK/JPN and RUS/NK. "Six-Party Talks" was not hosted in Sweden or Switzerland, but hosted in Beijing, because those European nations are geopolitical irrelevant to East Asian politics.
Why not South Korea? There is a distinct disadvantage for Kim to negotiate with US-SK on fate of Korean peninsula while in South Korean territory and Kim Jong Un's physical security cannot be assured inside SK territory due to decapitation squad by SK.
Why Pyongyang? (from NK's perspective)
Pros: (from NK's perspective)
Why Beijing? (from NK's perspective)- Kim's physical security can be assured, safe environment (Very important, paranoid about assassination)
- Familiar and comfortable environment for negotiations, home-field advantage.
- Never traveled abroad in his official capacity for fear of military coup during absence
- Victorious 'Tributary visit' by POTUS confers legitimacy to Kim dynasty.
- Trump's physical security cannot be assured, unsafe environment (Very important)
- POTUS visit may be seen as tributary visit conferring prestige to North Korea.
- Minor, but 12 hour timezone difference will degrade Trump's mental sharpness.
Pros: (from NK's perspective)
Why DMZ? (from NK's perspective)- Kim's physical security can be assured, safe environment (Very important)
- Beijing capital played host city to the 'Six-Party Talks' (六方会谈) involving US, CHN, RUS, JPN, and two KORs from 2003-2007.
- Familiar with Beijing capital during his tour with his (essentially shoring Chinese support for power transition)
- As sign of deference, first meet 'Celestial Emperor' as first non-Korean foreign leader before 'Satan Dotard' as respect to Xi Jinping.
- Chinese ally can observe whether meeting is done in good faith (e.g. 'manage' US from reneging or negotiating out of bad faith from beginning)
- Give China most credibility as the dominant power in East Asia.
- Cannot take all credit for forcing NK to the table, must recognize China's role in the 'maximum pressure campaign'.
- Upstaged by a more powerful man (Xi Jinping)
Pros: (from NK's perspective)
--------------------- Kim's physical security can be relatively assured, relatively safe environment (Very important)
- Still technically on "Korean soil" given DPRK claim to entire peninsula. Relatively close to home.
- Kim Jong Un will visit Moon Jae-in (SK Pres.) along DMZ so there is precedent.
- Removes optics of paying tributary mission to Beijing by hosting summit at "Korean territory"
- Trump's physical security is not guaranteed along DMZ (Very important)
- Cannot take credit as the first sitting POTUS to enter NK soil.
- Panmunjom location is very humble, not opulent like Trump is envisioning for a "historic event".
If they are looking for a "Neutral" country like Switzerland or Sweden, then it's wrong thinking. The "Six-Party Talks" on denuclearization was hosted in Beijing capital, which was considered "neutral" grounds for US/SK/JPN and RUS/NK. "Six-Party Talks" was not hosted in Sweden or Switzerland, but hosted in Beijing, because those European nations are geopolitical irrelevant to East Asian politics.
Why not South Korea? There is a distinct disadvantage for Kim to negotiate with US-SK on fate of Korean peninsula while in South Korean territory and Kim Jong Un's physical security cannot be assured inside SK territory due to decapitation squad by SK.
Last edited:
