Sweden Hosts ‘Constructive’ North Korea Talks, Eyes On Second Summit With The U.S.


David Smith Jr.

He is currently an undergraduate Economics major at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His present concentrations of study and research include international trade and political relations, along with their effects on global welfare, economies, and the environment. After pursuing further graduate economics education, he hopes to become a part of the U.S. policy making process through consulting and research.

Earlier this week, several parleys between North Korea, South Korea, and Swedish intermediaries concluded productively in Stockholm, with delegates from the United States also having attended many of these discussions. All parties involved purportedly sought peaceful solutions to developing strong economic and political relations with one another. The attending agents also strongly desired arranging another meeting between North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, and U.S. President, Donald Trump, next month. These particular advancements in international governmental relations, especially between the United States and North Korea, appear promising.

Though American and North Korean administrations contentiously and continuously held disagreements over the past few years, the two countries finally appear to be closing their ideological divide. As one delegate for the Swedish Ministry proudly testified, “Constructive talks have been held covering issues concerning developments on the Korean peninsula, including confidence building, economic development and long-term engagement.” With the main global concern regarding the two parties being international safety, the leaders and their respective ambassadors seemingly commenced strategies moving towards anti-militarization. “Different mechanisms for regional security have been discussed, that issue was something to which a lot of time was devoted,” an attendee guaranteed.

Following this statement, a South Korean official assured that the U.S. remains steadfast in requesting for North Korea’s cooperation with regard to the production of nuclear weapons. He states, “There’s no shifting — not a bit — about what the goal is. It’s complete denuclearization.”

These recent occurrences should be lauded as a proper means of international deliberation. The two national regimes — the U.S. and North Korea — are known to hold entirely divergent perspectives, especially between their primary leaders. However, the nations appear closer to reaching globally beneficial agreements than they have in decades. Proponents of global, peaceful unanimity should especially praise the work of Swedish mediators in these negotiations, whose role has made consistent communication possible, and maintained composed temperaments amidst all apparent odds. Regardless of self-interest, Swedish officials stepped in for the overall good. They perfectly understood the potential impact of continued U.S.-Korean contention and correctly altered its course. South Korea also provided a respectable and noteworthy example, by bravely posturing itself amidst the tensions to pressure both sides towards appropriate diplomatic responses.

The developing proceedings become especially admirable when paired with the tumultuous history involving these nations. The Korean War essentially pitted the United States and contemporary South Korean against the Soviet Union and modern North Korea. Intensely fuelled by anti-communist sentiment during the Cold War, the aftermath of this brutal conflict resulted in long-staying negative attitudes between the parties involved.

As North Korea continued receiving backing from Soviet and Chinese regimes, the United States and its allies reciprocally advanced the development of South Korea, fostering further hostility. Through decades of harboured resentment and mistrust, the nations, perhaps understandably, kept their distance. However, the global powers eventually realized the need for an intervention, as the world witnessed North Korea investing substantially in nuclear-grade military weaponry.

An understanding and respect for the humble diplomacy between these countries, along with Swedish intercession, can be observed. Though the dispute intensified over the past few years by provocation from both administrations, civil negotiation emerges victorious. By pressures of economic sanctions and global condemnation, both parties finally acknowledged the faults of their impetuousness and came to the decision to regulate themselves. Moreover, these incidences may have created a blueprint for conflict resolution which can be used as precedent in the future, especially given that the relationship held between the nations were reputably incredibly tense.


About David Smith Jr.

He is currently an undergraduate Economics major at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His present concentrations of study and research include international trade and political relations, along with their effects on global welfare, economies, and the environment. After pursuing further graduate economics education, he hopes to become a part of the U.S. policy making process through consulting and research.