Yes, we should celebrate the newfound peace between North and South Korea – but remain sceptical

Did Kim starve his own people, suffer international sanctions and isolation, and run huge risks of war with his neighbours to develop his nuclear weaponry – just to declare it redundant at the very moment of completion?

Much of the lavish pageantry laid on by the two Koreas during their summit meeting seemed to be designed to remind the Korean people, and the wider world, of how much the North and the South have in common – and not least Korea’s history as a once mighty imperial power in its own right. Hence the colourful traditional uniforms, the widespread use of the unofficial united Korean flag, and, of course, the historic handshakes, grins and hugs between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in.

The summit might also, usefully, remind both sides about the vast potential that a more cooperative relationship between the two nation’s combined 75 million people could yield. South Korea’s economic progress in the six decades since the end of the Korean War has, after all, been spectacular; the North’s performance has been remarkably poor, to the point of periodic famines. If only, many will wonder, the industrial strength of the South Korean chaebol structure could be brought to bear on the North’s beleaguered economy. Globally famous names such as LG, Samsung, and Hyundai have propelled the South, once the less industrially developed half of the country, to become one of the richest nations on Earth. How much more, if only theoretically, could be achieved by One Korea? “We are one nation… we cannot be separated,” declared Mr Moon and Mr Kim.

Such dreams are understandable, and unavoidable, for Koreans who yearn for their nation to be reunited. In the past such progress as there has been in political and industrial cooperation has been stuttering and modest. Even family reunions have been difficult to achieve. In the era of South Korea’s “sunshine” policy of engagement there were North-South summits, full of warm words but with little concrete to show for their trouble.

Now there seems to be a near revolutionary breakthrough.

The Korean War that technically never ended since the truce of 1953 has, in effect, been declared over. Never knowingly understated, Donald Trump has told us so, via Twitter: “KOREAN WAR TO END!” An ambitious aim of denuclearisation for the peninsula has been agreed – and with none of the usual troublesome preconditions. Mr Kim has confessed publicly, and astonishingly, that his nation’s transport infrastructure is not, after all, a model of superior socialist efficiency. More family meetings are promised. The tensions are being tangibly eased. It has been an extraordinary meeting, where symbolism has, for a change, been matched by significant achievements.

Success has many fathers, while failure is always an orphan, it has been said. President Trump has been keen to take his share of the credit for this successful summit, and it would be churlish to deny that his brutal brand of diplomacy might have had some impact on calculations in Pyongyang. The US State Department, so maligned by the president, has also been quietly hard at work. Within weeks Mr Kim will follow up his triumphant trip and meet President Trump, a reward for good behaviour. After that, perhaps a further summit between the two Koreas, America and China to cement a lasting peace.

China’s President Xi has long been keen to coax North Korea into a different mindset, and avoid a collapse in its economy. A four power meeting would be a prize that would certainly confound Mr Trump’s critics (not to mention the earlier abuse thrown at him by Kim Jong-un himself). The Nobel Peace Prize committee would have to give serious consideration honouring Kim Jong-un and President Trump. Strange days, indeed.

Yet there must be doubts. Did Mr Kim starve his own people, suffer international sanctions and isolation, and run huge risks of war with his neighbours to develop his nuclear weaponry – just to declare it redundant at the very moment of completion? Will he really discard his guarantee of international stature and, more important, the survival of the Kim dynasty in return for some car factories and new roads? Is the West ready to relax sanctions and invest in the world’s last Stalinist state simply because it has, at long last, merely lived up to its international obligations? Is South Korea in reality safer and more secure without US bases and the US nuclear umbrella, given the North’s vast army?

There are endless reasons not to trust Kim Jong-un, and long experience suggests that they are soundly based. Yet that is no reason not to keep up the momentum that has so suddenly arrived, and seize the opportunity that has presented itself to ease the militantly belligerent Democratic People’s Republic of Korea into the international family of nations. The more exposed North Koreans are to South Korean pop music, TV, living standards, fashion and so much else, and the more the internet and global media penetrate Mr Kim’s hermit kingdom, the looser his control over them will grow, though not necessarily to the point of regime change.

It is also possible that an economic restructuring and liberalisation could coexist with continuing one party rule by the Workers’ Party of Korea, mirroring the way China has evolved since the 1980s. Such a future could be tacitly guaranteed by South Korea, the US and China at a future peace conference. It would be far from perfect, and no one should imagine that a new version of Sweden is about to pop up on the Korean peninsula – but it is immeasurably better than the unstable situation before Mr Kim took those few steps across the DMZ, or indeed any of the many traumas of conquest and war that the Korean people have experienced over the past century and more.