Let us start by looking back at the National Intelligence Service's (NIS) parliamentary briefing on the 1st, specifically what lawmaker Yoon Kun-young, the Democratic Party's secretary who received the briefing, shared with reporters. He stated, "We believe a US-North Korea summit is possible at any time, and there are signs of dialogue." Because President Trump has repeatedly posted photos of the US-North Korea summit and unilaterally scaled back joint South Korea-US military exercises—which North Korea detests—almost as if just notifying us, it sparked interest: "Is there really something going on?" If such signs are real, Trump's overtures would carry an entirely different weight.

Upon closely reviewing the briefing, however, a precondition was attached. No specific facts regarding actual contact have been confirmed. What does it mean to say there are signs of dialogue when no facts are confirmed? I spoke with committee members who attended the briefing. They explained that while contact still cannot be confirmed, it is true there are signs that North Korea is interested in US-North Korea dialogue. To sum up the situation, while we cannot say with 1000% certainty that the US and North Korea are not moving behind the scenes without the NIS knowing, signs of active engagement by North Korea are typically shared to a large extent, yet such movements have not been notably revealed. Nevertheless, North Korea also appears to be keeping a close eye on President Trump's recent moves. You may remember John Bolton, who served as White House National Security Advisor during the first Trump administration. He projected that if a US-North Korea summit takes place, only one scenario remains. Since Trump held a meeting at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) in Panmunjom in 2019, he would likely seek to visit Pyongyang this time. No incumbent US president has ever set foot on North Korean soil. There have been cases of former presidents doing so. Former President Jimmy Carter visited Pyongyang in 1994, and former President Bill Clinton in 2009, meeting Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il, respectively. There were also instances where a visit nearly happened, though it did not materialize. This refers to the year 2000 during Bill Clinton's presidency. At the time, resolving the missile issue with North Korea was the main point of contention. In October 2000, then-US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright traveled to Pyongyang to coordinate a summit within the year, but this ultimately did not work out. This was because a Middle East peace agreement between Israel and Palestine was within reach, and President Clinton chose to address the Middle East issue over the North Korea issue. Will President Trump actually try to go to Pyongyang, as Bolton suggested? Trump actually proposed boarding Air Force One together to go all the way to Pyongyang following the Hanoi no-deal. Chairman Kim Jong-un declined at the time, but White House security details were turned upside down. Therefore, stepping onto Pyongyang soil as a US president seems to be a much less complicated matter in Trump's mind than one might think. Reflecting on the situation when Clinton's visit to Pyongyang was discussed in 2000, the Middle East issue and the North Korea issue competed for priority at the time. Similarly, the Iran war shows little sign of ending, meaning the Middle East and North Korea issues remain intertwined today. President Trump has struggled to extricate himself from the quagmire of the Iran war. The scaling back of joint military exercises can also be seen as influenced by the deployment status of US forces heavily committed to the Middle East. If there is a stark difference from the past, it is the propensity of the leadership determining priorities. Unlike Clinton, who ultimately chose the Middle East issue to concentrate diplomatic resources, Trump is different. Trump is interpreted as judging that meeting Kim Jong-un still holds utility for pushing criticisms regarding the Iran war off the headlines. In other words, he is aiming for the effect of diversion rather than concentration. A tug-of-war is underway between the US and North Korea to resume dialogue. For now, it is an out-of-ring battle of words. On the 1st local time, the White House maintained its stance that "President Trump remains open to talking with Kim Jong-un without any preconditions." There was no mention of denuclearization. While talking without conditions may sound like a quite conciliatory message, from North Korea's current perspective, it may not be entirely pleasant. This is because North Korea is demanding talks with preconditions. During the 9th Party Congress in February, Chairman Kim Jong-un set preconditions for improving relations with the US: first, that the US respect his status enshrined in the constitution, the so-called nuclear-armed state status, and second, that it withdraw its hostile policy toward North Korea. The basket named hostile policy toward North Korea is quite fluid in size. Joint military exercises, human rights issues, and sanctions against the North could all be included here. To sum up once again, Trump wants to meet and talk for now since he can somehow skirt around mentioning denuclearization, while North Korea's position is that not mentioning denuclearization is a given, plus the US needs to show sincerity. There is a gap between these stances, and how this gap narrows is expected to be a key point in gauging the possibility of full-scale US-North Korea dialogue. Trump had pressured Kim Jong-un in Hanoi with "Yongbyon plus alpha," but it seems the roles have reversed now, doesn't it?