Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE LEADERS OF North and South Korea agreed to pursue a permanent peace treaty and the complete denuclearisation of their divided peninsula at a historic summit laden with symbolism.
The North’s leader Kim Jong Un and the South’s President Moon Jae-in embraced after signing what they called the Panmunjom Declaration, following a day that began with an emotional handshake over the Military Demarcation Line that splits their countries.
The pair issued a statement confirming their “common goal of realising, through complete denuclearisation, a nuclear-free Korean peninsula”.
They agreed they would seek a permanent end to the Korean War this year, 65 years after hostilities ended in an armistice rather than a peace treaty.
Moon would visit Pyongyang in “the fall”, the two leaders said, pledging to hold “regular meetings and direct telephone conversations”.
But Kim did not mention denuclearisation and analysts warned that while the summit was a good first step, similar promises had been made before and much remained to be done to resolve the issue of the North’s atomic arsenal.
In coming weeks, Kim is due to hold a much-anticipated meeting with US President Donald Trump – who has demanded Pyongyang give up its weapons – that will be crucial in shaping progress.
Trump hailed the Korea summit as historic, but warned “only time will tell”.
He told reporters he would not be “played” by the North’s leader at their upcoming meeting, with “two countries” now in the running to host the summit.
Trump also implicitly claimed credit for the Korean meeting, tweeting: “KOREAN WAR TO END! The United States, and all of its GREAT people, should be very proud of what is now taking place in Korea!”
But he also offered a nod to his “good friend”, Chinese President Xi Jinping, who had provided “great help”.
‘Filled with emotion’
The Panmunjom Declaration capped an extraordinary day, unthinkable only months ago as the nuclear-armed North carried out a series of missile launches and its sixth atomic blast.
Kim and Trump had traded personal insults and threats of war, sending tensions soaring before Moon seized on the Winter Olympics to broker dialogue, beginning a dizzying whirl of diplomacy that led to today’s meeting in the Demilitarized Zone.
Kim said he was “filled with emotion” after stepping over the concrete blocks that mark the border, making him the first Northern leader to set foot in the South since the Korean War ceasefire in 1953.
At his impromptu invitation, the two men briefly crossed hand-in-hand into the North before beginning the summit, only the third of its kind.
During another symbolic gesture, the two men took part in the ceremonial planting of a pine tree.
It was a far cry from the last tree-related operation Moon was on duty for in the DMZ — a monumental show of force after North Korean soldiers killed two US officers trying to prune a poplar in 1976, when he was a special forces soldier.
‘Heart-wrenching division’
The truce village of Panmunjom was the “symbol of heart-wrenching division”, Kim said, but if it became “a symbol of peace, the North and South that have one blood, one language, one history and one culture, will return to becoming one”.
He pledged the two Koreas would ensure they did not “repeat the unfortunate history in which past inter-Korea agreements… fizzled out after beginning”.
In the declaration, the two sides said they would seek meetings this year with the US and possibly China – both parties to the 1953 ceasefire – “with a view to declaring an end to the war, turning the armistice into a peace treaty, and establishing a permanent and solid peace regime”.
But agreeing a treaty to formally close the conflict will be complicated – both Seoul and Pyongyang claim sovereignty over the whole Korean peninsula.
The two previous Korean summits in 2000 and 2007, both in Pyongyang, also ended with displays of affection and similar pledges, but the agreements ultimately came to naught.
‘First step’
Moon welcomed the North’s announcement of a moratorium on nuclear testing and long-range missile launches as “very significant”, calling it “an important step towards complete denuclearisation”.
But how much progress was made on the nuclear issue remained unclear.
Pyongyang has always insisted it needs nuclear weapons to defend itself against a US invasion, and is demanding still unspecified security guarantees to discuss its arsenal, while Washington is pressing it to give up its weapons in a complete, verifiable and irreversible way.
Affirming a commitment to denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula was “not new”, said MIT political science professor Vipin Narang, “historic summit notwithstanding”.
But he added: “Reaffirming it is better than not reaffirming it.”
Paul Haenle of the Carnegie-Tsinghua Center in Beijing said it was “really just the first step in broader diplomatic efforts”.
Similar to a game of chess, this move opens up a series of possible developments but in many ways, the hard work really begins now.
After an early dispatch saying Kim was heading for the summit, the North’s state media offered no further coverage of events, even as the leaders’ handshake was beamed around the world.
But at a farewell ceremony, the two men watched images of their landmark encounter beamed onto the summit venue in a sound-and-light show, standing hand-in-hand for several minutes.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
This could be the start of equal rights for men in the family courts.
And women
Emily you are getting red thumbed but I agree with you, this is a win win regardless of gender. It will discourage extreme vengefulness from all sides.
I have no problem with red thumbs. I’m delighted with getting some transparency. I’ve no doubt men have been burned but I also know if a case where a child abuser gets one hr access to kids pw. This is supervised by the HSE at the taxpayers expense. At one stage a male social worker was going as a body guard to the female supervisor as the man was in an agitated state. This man has not paid any maintenance & has cost the state a HSE supervisor & a risk assessment done by a forensic psychologist. The judge on more than one occasion spoke of his regrets at not spending more time with his kids. There for he has takin a bias view and is putting these women’s kids at significant risk of harm. The woman is afraid to try and get a maintenance order for fear she will anger this already angry man. Transparency for this case could be beneficial to the children involved
And we have all heard of cases where allegations of abuse were raised by the wi… Ehhhh female spouse to gain legal advantage. If abuse has not been proven it’s very dangerous to allege injustice without a conviction.
You are actually being offensive to men who have mistreated by a court systems blatantly in favour of women Emily.
Absolutely Paul, in the above case I know of clear evidence of abuse was found. It was also witnessed by others outside the family
@ Fatray. Was it not you who started on equal rights for men? I didn’t see any equality in your first statement. I clearly state that “yes men get burned but so do women”.
@Fatray – on another article you think it’s ok to suggest that children with special needs lose their equal rights…
@Emily O’Sullivan
Has the perpetrator been charged with the abuse?
Yes he has
@ciaran. The whole court system is dated. I know of men who have no rights to their kids because the judge listens to a bitter ex and takes her side. On the other hand judges are given clear evidence of abuse and instead of stopping access they will cost d state on supervision. Every child should have a right to see both parents unless it’s unsafe to do so. The case which I spoke of, I believe one child wants to see the father and the mother believes once it’s safe for the child then it should be the child’s right
yes, but Family law courts are civil and not criminal and there in lies a problem.
yes, women get burned too and children especially in DV and abuse cases. Statistics prove it.
You mentioned burned!!!!!! yes strong protective mothers get called witches in secret courts in Ireland, UK and USA, have all property taken, just like the old days. Proof available.
These judgments do need to be seen by journalists and especially service users in order to understand the goings in these secret courts. My own solicitor did not believe me until he read the paperwork.
It has to be noted here that judges etc are groomed to see all Irish mothers as “feeble minded”
it has been proven that only a tiny % of women make up abuse allegations. it was a myth from olden times re all women being Eve ill like Eve.
If you happen to get a serious Roman Catholic judge, he will tell women about their place in society and not to dare complain re their violent husbands. Same for children. Abused children also get pedophile Richard Gardiner “Threat Therapy” to break them down- also known as mental torture, but legalised for the HSE agents. I have witnessed it. Incredible how it is allowed.
What about Hitler’s best interest of the child slogan? and how HSE agents try to get Electric Shock orders to burn out all memories of abuse so the child can be placed with the abuser- full custody- as the judge felt the violent father deserved a chance to parent.
One has to be inside these courts to know the truth.
Open transparency is the order of the 21st century.
Any judge not allowing other service users and members of the public in is obviously hiding something.
Also with the new business in fostering children, and children being the commodity and so much money being spent, the public have a right to see why children are being removed into corporate care so much now considering they are 7 times more likely to be abused in HSE care than in natural families.
It is all about the money.
Solicitors solicit business for the court corporation.
Both sides solicitors win $$$$$ no matter what.
it is all decided before the court jeters come into the court to play their roles to the service users.
Now it is almost impossible to get anyone to represent against HSE with so many being threatened with loosing their own children if they dare go against them.
So much happening in secret, and the public being kept in the dark.
Yes Alan is aware for years. He has seen the evidence with his own eyes.
This Attorney has full understanding of the situation and knows about Ireland too. it is the same pattern in the UK and former colonies.
http://www.domesticviolenceabuseandchildcustody.com/
“For more than two decades, protective mothers from every state in the country (as well as overseas) have been ordered to turn their children over into the care, and even the custody, of the children’s abusive fathers. This occurs even when there is adequate evidence of child abuse, domestic violence, and other harmful behaviors on the part of the father. Courts claim to be doing this to ensure that both parents remain involved in their children’s lives after divorce or separation, but in fact, in most of these cases, precisely the opposite happens: mothers are denied any meaningful relationship, or even contact, with their children. In the meantime, male supremacist groups claim unfair treatment in the family courts, seeking shared or total custody in order to avoid paying child support and to maintain men’s traditional control over their partner and their children.”
@Emily O Sullivan
Is the alleged victim one of his children? If so, then surely the authorities could convince the judge to deny him access on the grounds of Article 42.5 of the Constitution (the amendment passed in the children referendum has not yet taken effect, as far as I know). Furthermore, letting him have access might constitute reckless endangerment, which is an offence under Irish law, even if there is supervision because of the risk that the accused might kill or incapacitate the supervisors. If the judge still doesn’t deny access, then the authorities can appeal.
It could also be the start of equal rights for women!
No it’s a sibling. I believe if supervision is lifted than an appeal would have to take place.
I know not many people like Alan Shatter, but he ought to be given due credit for this one.
How exactly? By transferring responsibility for keeping what goes on in Family Law Courts secret to the people responsible for what goes on in the Family Law Courts?
About time. Current system like a Star Chamber.
It’s now at the judges discretion – in other words – no change. Don’t expect to see a press reporter as a regular feature in Family Law Courts.
I’m sure the Journal will have a correspondent in the lobby if and when it’s required. I can see solicitors asking Judges to consider media reporting in the event of wilful breaches of court orders and obstruction in relation to access. I remember one of the complaints about in camera was that there was no data on typical maintenance payments available anywhere, nor normal expectations around access. I see this as a step in the right direction, mostly as people considering going to court will not be living in a speculative sense of what they are entitled to.
or being easily misled by solicitors into prolonging their business at the expense of anybody
Peace,
How will the press know when their presence is required? Who gets to decide when to invite them in?
And if a court reporter gets in who gets to decide what they can report?
So far we have seen a Family Law Reporting Project (Carol Coulter) and a Child Law Reporting Project (FLAC Involvement) and the public as a result knows SFA about how those courts operate. No real statistics were published about case outcomes, just a selection of brief case summaries that collectively say nothing.
Ok you have me thinking of reasonable use of this change and I guess we will have to wait and see. I assumed there would be reporting of orders and settlements anonymously, and then for more public interest cases like the surrogacy case last year perhaps a more in depth analysis in reporting.
You are correct.
Maybe now orders will be written down by judges so parents can appeal, as without a written order a service user cannot appeal.
Maybe too children who raise issues of abuse will not have their inheritance rights extinguished.?
Also now art 6 of human rights will have to be upheld with HSE etc giving copies of reports to parents and not just their solicitors, giving them the chance to rebut what is in the reports. This will stop HSE etc using the excuse that the reports might upset parents. Yes, sure untruths would hurt. But it was a nice trick while it lasted, using the excuse that this is how it is in our Irish courts- Star chamber inquisition courts of old.
Let us also hope the ex parte rule is also confined to the past.
There is so much that needs changing in this old draconian system that anyone who has experience could write far better than any journalist or Carol Coulter.
How many service users suffer “legal Abuse Syndrome” from not receiving justice.?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeGdK2cvNY8
About time, at least the chance for a child to know both its parents equally is going to be the normalised. We will see patterns now , and it’s never about identifying the families affected but seeing how both children are used for leverage and payments varying widely for similar cases create unjust outcomes for these families. The best thing this will do is not prevent family breakdowns but show the cost and waste to a family to go adversarial.
Welcome to the 21st century
ABOUT TIME!!
have your say