 Hello and welcome to NewsClick. In today's international roundup, we are joined by NewsClick Editor-in-Chief, Prabir Porkayastha, who will be discussing with us today the ongoing inter-Korea summit, as well as the Russian military plane, which was recently shot down due to the actions of the Israeli Air Force. So, as we know, this is the third summit which is taking place between the two nations, between the nations of North Korea and South Korea this year. And this is happening after the last summit which was held between the U.S. and North Korea, which led to tensions de-escalating when the two nations agreed upon a mutual path which could result in peace. Although subsequently the U.S. withdrew from this plan and decided to not go ahead, because pressing on North Korea to denuclearize before it would formally announce anything on the Korean War of 1950. So, Prabir, firstly, what do you feel is the significance of this summit which is taking place between the two nations? As we know, one of the motives which South Korean leader has declared is to facilitate talks between North Korea and U.S. on denuclearization. Do you feel that this would result in anything this time? Well, let's put it this way, that this is always been a triangular issue, though essentially the two Koreas should be the primary parties to peace in the Korean peninsula. Unfortunately, South Korea and the United States are in a military alliance and South Korea is dependent not only militarily in the United States, but the United States seems to have shall we say major pressure points with which it can manipulate South Korea to the extent that even their military seems to be controlled by the United States. This is something which we know is a result of the military alliance, the military agreements they have reached among themselves which gives U.S. certain powers over South Korean military. And secondly, if the South Korean politics has not been to the liking to the United States, they have done to various again channels that they have, the switches they seem to have in South Korea, the ability to do regime change. This time there has been a Korean, South Korean president who has explicitly come on the basis of that they want, he wants peace between South Korea and North Korea. And the fact that President Trump and President Kim had met in Singapore and worked out shall we say path for peace, a four-point agenda with South Korea, sorry, North Korea has also fulfilled one of the points residing handing over the remains of the American soldiers. The other three points that were there were supposed to be in sequence. That means you first have armistice to a declaration of peace, you take certain steps towards that recognition that North Korea and South Korea will have not only peace among themselves, but the United States promises not to do anything to make North Korea think it can be invaded. So a whole lot of measures would be taken. And the third point was also denuclearization. So the way it has been read by the United States and North Korea seems to be different. North Korea has read it that there is a first peace and then denuclearization. The United States has been reading it, first denuclearization before United States has to do anything. And this is obviously shall we say a post facto modification of an agreement. This is not the way the agreement can be read and this is not the way the agreement should be read. So given this, North Korea and South Korea's summit, the one which is started as of now and it's a three-day summit which is to go on, what are the possible outcomes of it? I think important is that they are meeting, that they have not stopped meeting. They believe that the process of peace can continue between the two Koreas irrespective of what the United States says, though South Korean president has talked about well denuclearization of North Korea as well the points you will discuss. But it's very clear peace is on his agenda and therefore he is not saying denuclearization without peace which is what the president of United States seems to want and his advisors seem to be talking about. So I think I do believe that this means that the communications between the two sides are not broken, that North Korea, South Korea meeting talking about it means that there is a back channel, at least the United States will have still to talk to North Korea and therefore the fact that it does not come out against the summit would indicate that it is also interested in engaging with North Korea. It's also I think should be clear by now to the United States that an attack on North Korea is not something they can do given the fact that the North Koreans have shown their missile capability and the fact that they have also shown that they have the hydrogen bomb. I think military reversal of such a scenario is not likely to happen and if militarily United States cannot prevail upon North Korea to denuclearize then to expect to do it on the negotiating table this would be shall we say stupid. So given this I think they also don't want to break off completely with the North Koreans and therefore for them also South Korea is a wire media to keep the discussion going. So I think that to be it's a good sign that two Koreas are meeting, some normalization of relationship can take place and it's a good sign that the United States has not condemned all of this and said South Korea must pull out of such discussions. I think that's to be small versus we should be grateful for small versus. Another agenda on this summit was also economic development between the two countries we see that the delegation from South Korea is also also consists of many top businessmen of the country and representatives from the public sector. So do you feel there could be any success on that front? Well they would like to start with peace of a certain kind. The dividing line which is still an our business line should be converted to a recognized border the withdrawal therefore of possibly United Nations observers who are still on the ground over there and this can be settled between the two of them and if this happens then the possibility of also trade between the two countries. But again how much leeway they will have on this will also depend on the United States and how much leeway United States allows South Korea to have. So probably we also see reports coming in of North Korea declaring that they will shut down one of their missile testing and launching sites as well as disabling one of their nuclear facilities. So what do you feel is going to be the United States response to this? You know I think it's important to note that in spite of the United States having pulled out virtually of the peace agreement which had been reached in Singapore between Kim, President, Kim and President Trump that South Korea is continuing its negotiations, its discussions and peace talks with North Korea. I think that's a very important signal that the entire peace process has not completely stalled based on the American demands. It's also important to see that North Korea has given some signals that it is taking further steps to encourage the peace talks to continue and given some concessions to what the United States has been asking for essentially to talk about at least disbanding one of the missile test sites. Of course they are not dismantling any missiles and this is a test site and they have argued they already have missile capability they wanted this stage so they don't really require a test launching site that could be the argument. At the same time the fact that they also are talking about dismantling the nuclear test facilities they have. Again the argument would be they have already done what they wanted they don't need any further tests they don't need any of these things anymore. But it's an indication that they are seeing that they are giving signals they are willing for denuclearization provided peace is achieved. So the conditions for peace and the conditions for denuclearization which United States wants is really for the talks and is also very clear that denuclearization can happen if there is peace on the peninsula if they're under threat and they're militarily isolated militarily barricaded so to say that the chances of North Korea dismantling its nuclear weapons is not of the cards. So I think the issue really is that nobody after what happened in Libya what happened in Iraq is going to argue that will dismantle everything and depend on the goodwill of the United States because the US goodwill is notorious is becoming ill will depending on who is the president what is the climate in the United States and so on and no country is going to risk its future dependent on goodwill of another country. So moving on to the issue of the Russian plane which was shot down the Russian military has put the blame squarely on the actions of the Israeli Air Force while Israel is blaming Syria and its allies in Lebanon and Iran. So what is your take on this issue? Well let's first see the background of this this is Israel attacking sites in Syria and this is obviously an act of war. Now the fact that Israel has Israel has done this over the last 40-50 years that it believes that the skies over Syria skies over other Arab countries is free skies for itself has been always an issue and this is shall we say the edethtime in recent history that they have struck within Syria claiming they are attacking Iranian targets but in effect they are actually attacking a sovereign country which is Syria and this by any international law terms is illegal. They are only able to do it because the Security Council in the United States will give it protection and that's what they have done for the number of years. In this particular case what seems to happen it's not just Israel it's not just Russia and Syria it's also the French involved that this seems to be two things one is they seem to have fired very close to the French frigate from which four F-16s have fired missiles for the strikes and they are also hiding behind an illusion 20 which is a much bigger aircraft is a transport transport aircraft they are hiding behind it so that if the missiles were launched against it it would have the risk of striking the illusion 20. The question therefore is should the Syrian authorities launched missiles given the fact the illusion 20 was approaching and therefore yes it is true that there is also a error on the part of the Syrian forces on the ground who are manning the air defense and the communication between them and the Russians so that's we cannot say that while this is clearly a military provocation by Israel that there was no human failure on this side as well but given that there was a human failure we have also to look at it how much of this was a planned provocation that hoping that something would happen and the blame would be taken by the Syrians if they had for instance instead of the illusion 20 they could have thought the missiles came from the French frigate and attack that as well so those are the things the Israeli forces seem to be trying that to get Syria to attack either the French or to get it you know hit a Russian aircraft and by this provoke others into different kinds of scenarios and this is the seems to be their game plan so I think the Russians are completely right in saying this was an extreme military provocation by Israel hoping to create precipitate this kind of scenario and they are to blame at the same time yes there is also human failure on the side of Syrians and the Russians and that is why President Putin has been a little softer in his statement which have said this is unfortunate this this happened but let's be very clear Russians are not going to forget it if you see what had happened when Turkey shot down Russian aircraft at that time Russians did not respond immediately but they made clear over six months to 12 months that Turkey understood the gravity of the provocation and understood the lessons of taking on Russia like this and that led to certain changes of what Turkey was going to do Russia does not respond like United States immediate bluster immediate action even if they're empty gestures but they really seem to play a longer game and in this case also I think they have given some leeway to Israel in Syria they have taken cognizance of Israel's shall we say concerns over Iran pulled or helped negotiate Iranian forces not to be close to Jolan and other Israeli borders but having done that to have this happen would be now the relation between Russia and Israel would be relatively more straight you must see that Russia has also tried to maintain its relation with Israel while supporting Syria and Iran on the ground and Hezbollah on the ground but they have not taken on Israel directly they have indirectly supported Syria against Israel but not directly taken them on in fact they have tried to keep some maneuverability for themselves I think this has is going to damage Israel and Russian relations very really badly and I think now that you see Idlib that Turkey, Syria, Iran and Russia are in conversation on the Idlib I think the situation is therefore becoming a little more desperate for Israel because they would like this war to continue and if Idlib de-escalates and if Turkey, Russia, Syria can control Idlib and get rid of the al Qaeda forces over there with whom the United States seems to be in alliance at the moment and of course Israel has been in alliance with them for quite some time I think that is the scenario which neither the United States nor Israel likes therefore provocations in the Latakia sector which is of course vital to Russia vital to Syria and I think that is something that Russia has to now take cognizance of. Thank you Praveen for joining us today thank you for watching this clip