s welcome to amanpour on pbs. we're looking back at some of our favorite interviews this year. tonight, in june president trump held a historic meeting with north korean leader kim jong-un in singapore. no progress on the promises of denuclearization. still tensions are lower for now. we were at the singapore summit and here's a look back at how it all unfolded. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> good evening, everyone and welcome to the program. i'm christiane amanpour in singapore. president donald trump and the

north korean leader kim jong-un have now departed after a whirlwind day filled with new images and maybe even a new paradigm for the peninsula. for the first time in 70 years. but with few details available, experts are trying to determine exactly what was actually achieved. a historic handshake for the first time, an american president meets the leader of north korea. and later, they sign a joint declaration in which kim jong-un agrees to complete denuclearization of the korean peninsula. >> translator: today we had a historic meeting and decided to leave the past behind and we are about to sign a historic document. the world will see a major change. >> at a rare press conference, president trump took a victory lap. >> i will say this, we're much further along than i would have

thought. i did not think would be -- and i've told people, i didn't want to build up people's hopes too much. i think the meeting was every bit as good for the united states as it was for north korea. >> but the statement was relatively vague, similar to previous agreements with north korea. >> the joint statement does not talk about verifiable or irreversible denuclearization. is that a concession on the part of the united states? >> no, not at all because if you look at it, i mean, it said we are going to -- let's see here. it will be gone -- i don't think you can be any more plain than what we're, what we're asking. >> and trump announced what many see as a major concession right off the bat. saying that he would immediately call a halt to the joint military exercises or war games as he called them with south korea. and even suggested u.s. troops could be pulled out. >> i'd like to be able to bring them back home, but that's not part of the equation right now. at some point i hope it will be, but not right now. we will be stopping the war

games which will save us a tremendous amount of money, unless and until we see the future negotiation is not going along like it should, but we'll be saving a tremendous amount of money. plus, i think it's very provocative. >> trump even gave kim a look inside his presidential limousine, and he said he showed kim a video that was crafted to layout the economic gains that could come north korea's way. and ever the real estate magnate, he added. >> as an example, they have great beaches. you see that whenever they're exploding the canons into the ocean, right? i said, boy, look at that beach. wouldn't that make a great condo behind -- >> trump said human rights came up only very briefly with kim, and then he went on to praise him as a great negotiator, as he would do again during an interview with abc. >> he wants to get it done. >> you trust him? >> i do trust him, yeah. now, will i come back to you in a year and you'll be

interviewing, i'll say, gee, i made a mistake, that's possible. we're dealing at a very high level. a lot of things can change. a lot of things are possible. he trusts me, i believe. i really do. i mean, he said openly and he said it to a couple of reporters that were with him that he knows, that no other president ever could have done this. i mean, no other -- he knows the presidents. he knows who we had in front of me. he said no other president could have done this. i think he trusts me and i trust him. >> so what should we make of the outcome of this summit and the fact that the joint statement was so short on details about the crucial issue, denuclearization? joining me now to discuss this from monterey, california, is jeffrey lewis. he is the director of the east asia nonproliferation program at the middlery institute of international studies there. and he's warned -- he's been warning for a long time that the first step towards peace is to lower our expectation. so, jeffrey lewis, welcome. given you were talking about lowering expectation, what --

how dao'an lies what happened after the joint communique? was that better or not as good as you expected? >> i didn't lower my expectations quite far enough. you know, what the joint statement says on the issue that i care about, reducing the threat from north korea's nuclear weapons, is really just a reaffirmation of the statement that kim jong-un made to president moon, which uses the word denuclearization. and i think it's probably very important to say that that word denuclearization does not mean disarmament. and so i think that the two parties are as far apart as they have ever been. >> jeffrey lewis, there has been a round up, if you look on all the sort of instant analysis over the last several hours since this happened. there is quite a lot of skepticism about precisely that point and another point, which is the halting of the war games. but let me first press you on the denuclearization.

the word was referred to a lot, president trump kept saying that it will happen quickly. leader kim jong-un has pledged it will happen, i know he wants to do it. everyone is still confused as to what exactly each side means by that. and what is the difference between denuclearization and disarmament and denuclearization on the korean peninsula as opposed to denuclearization of north korea? >> well, i think that is the absolutely crucial point. the word denuclearization is a north korean word. it's the word that the north koreans chose back in the late 1980s, early 1990s when they didn't have nuclear weapons, but the united states did have them on the korean peninsula. so when the north koreans talk about denuclearization, what they mean is a process by which relations are improved and some day in the future, maybe for example like president obama's prague speech, you know, we get

to a world in which we won't need nuclear weapons any more. so denuclearization is about putting improvement of relationship first and disarmament second, maybe never. the united states has always criticized that, arguing that what we want is disarmament and an actual dismantlement of the facilities. the idea is we need to do that first and then the relationship gets better. so you real have i this fundamental difference of opinion about what is supposed to come first, the disarmament or the improvement of relations and simply saying the denuclearization of the korean peninsula doesn't really help us do much more than just paper over that. >> well, in terms of getting on the road to a better relationship, that seems to have been the big take away from this summit. both leaders praised each other. you heard president trump obviously very, very copiously praising and fully praising leader kim. and in his very brief comments, the north korean leader talked

about a historic change on the way, the past is behind us and the world will see major change. if you were trying to figure out what that major change would be and the time line, what do you think are the next steps? and is the ball now in north korea's court? >> well, i think it's actually very unclear what the next steps are going to be. and part of this is a, a difference in what the united states is saying and what the united states is doing. you know, what we're doing is denuclearization, which is to say we're putting improvements in the relationship first and we're not really insisting that north korea give any nuclear capabilities up. the problem is every time president trump has asked about this, he says oh, no, no, no, kim will start very soon. so, for me, the big question is going to be who takes the next step? i think it's very unlikely that kim will do anything more than a

few cosmetic steps toward disarmament. i think it will ultimately be up to the united states to continue the policy of finding things to give the north koreans to keep them on their best behavior. >> it sounds a lot like -- i mean, you said finding things to keep giving the north koreans -- i think everybody was quite stunned by the president -- it seemed like it was off the cuff. it was not in the declaration. they didn't sign it, to say they are stopping the war games. we don't quite know what does that mean. is it temporary? is it a full stop? is it the entire gamut of the military exercises? we don't know what it means. south korea, the military seemed to be surprised by it. we need to get clarity what that means. what do you think having offered that precisely means? >> so, i truly don't know what the president was getting at.

you know, the north koreans have called for a reduction in the size and scope of the exercises. obviously they would like them all to be canceled. it's, it's hard to imagine the military ever accepting the way the president framed it, which was who pays to practice. the answer to that is everyone pays to practice. the way that you build a capable and ready military is by doing exercises. i don't, i don't think anybody disagrees that we shouldn't consider changing the exercises so that they match the political relationship. and if things are going well, then of course why do a provocative exercise. but, you know, the problem is that the president didn't say it in those moderate terms. what he did was issue a blanket condemnation of all military exercises so it's hard for me to believe he meant it, but that's what he said. >> and actually, others have pointed out that those military exercises are not just about --

not just about protecting the allies and containing north korea. they're also about a big signal to contain china as well and keep the united states relevant in that asia-pacific region. is that part of it now in question? and i guess since president trump has always wanted to do this, do you think he's deliberately -- this is not an accident what he said. he's deliberately setting up the future for a, not just tree ducks in those games, but eventually pulling out the troops, as he said that he wanted to do. >> yes, you know, this is one of these things that gets papered over in our kind of bipartisan discussions in washington. there is usually a traditional view that the united states should be allied with south korea. there's always been a dissenting view. president carter famously talked about pulling all u.s. troops out of south korea. so, you know, i think this idea that the united states should not be in south korea, although it's really outside of what

would typically be considered a mainstream discussion in d.c. i think it's something that president trump sincerely believes. and so for him it's not really a concession. >> jeffrey lewis, it is clear that when one starts personal relationships, it often leads to the ability to change the dynamic politically. i mean, you just have to go back to reagan and gorbachev. they did together, it wasn't one led to the other. we know what it led to. i guess are you willing to concede that might be the case here? and the double barrel question, the president keeps saying he's the only one who could do this, that kim jong-un knows he's the only one that could do this. that what he achieved in this summit, beyond just the meeting, was a much more robust, much more determinative yield than any other u.s. president had achieved or had been able to do.

>> well, i'll take the questions in the reverse order. as a factual matter, it's just not true that there is anything in this communique that hasn't been agreed to by the united states and north korea dozens of times in the past. whether it's the resumption of efforts to recover the remains of american servicemen killed in the korean war, or whether it's north korea's oft repeated denuclearization. it could have been written in pyongyang. but i will give the president this. he is the only person who could do this, but because his base simply does not care. i'm at the moment being bombarded on twitter by people who are just unironically saying north korea has given up their nuclear weapons. i think it's easier for the president given his base to bring along a large group of people who would normally oppose something like this.

so there john bolton sits, you know, chewing on his mustache. to go back to the -- go ahead. >> no, no, you go ahead. actually, you just mentioned john bolton and you did actually tweet about john bolton. of course, he's the bet to the north koreans. he was prominent, he was in the meetings. he was at the table. you can see him at one point talking to president trump and even to kim jong-un it looked like when they were standing in ehud l. you have said presumably if kim does not disarm, presumably that would require hawkish officials like bolton to call for a tougher stance. do you worry about that? the question is what is -- what will happen if he doesn't go and do the things president trump has assured the world he would do? >> well, so that goes back to the other question that i didn't end up answering, which is how much does personal rapport matter in a context like this.

you know, i think you are absolutely right that when two leaders share a common vision, then they have the political will to push past the obstacles so that's a good thing. the thing that worries me is we've seen that president trump is -- well, you know, he changes his mind. if february 2017 justin trudeau came to the white house and president trump talked about how much he liked him, what then happened is despite the personal rapport, there are real serious issues, serious issues that at least are important to the president. he didn't get what he wanted in the g7 summit and now things have collapsed in acrimony. i worry the same thing may happen here. it's a lot of cheery bon homey at the moment. but sooner or later it will be clear kim is not giving up the nuclear weapons and then the question is will trump feel like he has been cheated. >> well, do you think the united

states could live with a nuclear north korea along with major, you know, arms control agreements around it? do you think that's how it might end up? >> i think the united states should live with a nuclear armed north korea. i would have preferred we not get in this spot in the first place. but here we are. it's an interesting question whether we can. i mean, can we as a country accept that a particular foreign policy has failed and that we just have to take the world as it is? you know, i think it's quite a hard thing to do and politicians rarely are rewarded for telling people to eat their vegetables. but at the end of the day, yes, i think we need to take north korea as it is, make the progress that we can, and, you know, accept that there are some things that we will not be able to fix at least not in the near term. >> really fascinating perspective. thank you so much, jeffrey lewis from monterey.

we'll turn and ask that question now in south korea where there are mixed messages following today's summit. while president moon jae-in expressed his satisfaction with the out come of the talks, his defense department was more cautious saying that it needs to, quote, figure out president trump's accurate meaning and intention about ending those joint military exercises. my next guest joins me from seoul with his own perspective on today's meetings. he is a distinguished professor at yonsi university and advisor to president moon. he was in the room for the historic meeting with kim jong-un at the demilitarized zone back in april. he led to the ones we witnessed here in singapore. welcome to the program. let me ask you off the bat, do you think the world might have to live with a nuclear-armed north korea under a rigorous and robust arms control regime? >> no, i don't think so.

we can really -- we can still make north korea give up its nuclear weapons. and i think -- i still believe and hope in the negotiated settlement of north korea nuclear problem. >> dr. moon, you heard what jeffrey lewis said and you've seen the declaration for itself. you are enough of an expert to know that it was not very detailed and that almost none of those points were any different than what north korea said to south korea in the past and indeed what north korea said to previous u.s. presidents. so where does your faith come? what is your actual technical reason for believing that they will disarm, dee nuclear -- let's put it simply, get rid of their nuclear weapons? >> when president moon jae-in had in-depth discussion with chairman kim jong-un april 27,

they talked about complete denuclearization, and we understand it is meant by the complete verifiable and irreversible dismantling of north korean nuclear facilities and weapons. i understand the declaration really reflects the extension of the declaration. i understand president trump, president moon, chairman kim, they all share the common understanding ever cbid when they talk about complete denuclearization. >> so, just to be, just to get down into the weeds, many people believe when the north koreans say it and when they add the words of the korean peninsula, that means not just them, but the whole sort of alliance. in other words, what the u.s. has, we know it's not based inside south korea, but it's based on ships and on planes within range. do you think -- i mean, just to

push you, that the north koreans will disarm their own verifiably irreversibly and completely or are they going to wait for a situation where it happens on the peninsula with the u.s. included? >> not necessarily. if you go back to 1992, both north and south korea adopted the declaration of the denuclearization of the korean peninsula. both north and south korea not supposed to manufacture, test, deploy, use and transport of nuclear weapons. therefore it is my understanding when they talk about denuclearization of korean peninsula, they are really referring to the 1992 declaration on the denuclearization of korea. there is full understanding of what is meant by denuclearization. >> okay. they didn't have weapons at that

time, they do now. can i ask you what you think your country is going to make of president trump's announcement at the press conference? again, it was not in the declaration, but that they would stop what he called the war games with south korea. >> look, whether we have joint military exercise and training or not, the decision by alliance, not leader of one country. therefore even the president of the united states cannot make a unilateral decision on whether to continue or not to continue war games. it's true -- therefore i don't worry about it. eventually president trump will be talking with president moon. they will share a common understanding. to my understanding, when he talked about expansive nature of this joint military exercise, he's really referring to the deployment of steady assets such

as b-52 or b-2 bombers. therefore, i would say there would be continuation of allocating u.s. joint military exercise and training maybe. but as a result of president trump's remarks, they may not be the deployment of steady asset. as a matter of fact, north korea has been telling south korea, if united states and south korea do not deploy strategic assets, they are willing to tolerate our annual combined military exercise and training. therefore, i understand in that way, not just in suspending -- stopping the war games. >> okay. so, now let's flip it a little bit. your president has called it historic. he praised both leaders. and many in the alliance have said, including in europe and japan and elsewhere that this is a really important moment. so what do you think the steps will be going forward? for instance, in the

declaration, united states named secretary of state mike pompeo as their chief negotiator. the north koreans haven't named anybody. i mean, you'd think they would have had the opportunity to think about it. these apparently were points that were drumd up way before the summit. does that say anything to you? why would they have named somebody to meet with secretary of state pompeo? >> understandable. up until now it was an ad hoc situation for north korea. that's why dim jong-un was handling this issue. once they get into the specifics of nuclear negotiation, then people like foreign minister leon ho or vice chairman comes to the front line. therefore, north korea may need time to discuss who should be dealing with secretary pompeo. that's why he didn't give a name.

eventually pyongyang will come up with very specific names. but it is be most likely foreign ministry related guys. the department of united front korean workers' party. >> and let me just ask you, you know, you heard president trump several times refer to leader kim and he said he was a great personality, very smart, good combination, a very worthy, smart negotiator, absolutely talented, absolutely sure he wanted cbid, the acronym we've been throwing around, complete verifiable denuclearization and disarmament. what do you make of those words? you've been in the room with kim jong-un. do you see he has a historic shift in attitude and direction? >> i think so. he has made fundamental change. what we called paradigm change,

paradigm change in his way of conducting fine policy. also it is very, very important for president trump to cult have a personal dynamics with chairman kim jong-un. okay. when the secretary pompeo negotiate with his counterpart of north korea, if things go wrong, then suppose president trump make a phone call to kim jong-un. he can fix all the problems. look, north korea is a country of one man rule. it is a country of one leadership. therefore, once kim jong-un make decision, things get done. personal dynamics of the true leader seems to be an important feature in the venture. >> and very briefly, we have 30 seconds. is there anything that worries you? are there any risks you see on the horizon? >> no, i don't think that --

it's just the beginning. devil is in the details. but we understand north korea quite well, therefore i can we will be able to overcome the others. >> dr. moon, thank you for joining us from your national security perspective in seoul. so there is hope for a new beginning. allies in the region, even rivals, are still going to have to determine the total fall out and we will wait to see exactly what steps to see the north koreans take towards their promised denuclearization. that's it for our program tonight, and thanks for watching amanpour on pbs. joining again tomorrow night. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> you're watching pbs.

milan's monumental cemetery. while there are many evocative cemeteries in europe, this one -- with its emotional portrayals of the departed and their heavenly escorts -- in the melodramatic art styles from the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- is in a class by itself. it's a vast garden art gallery of proud busts and grim reapers, heartbroken angels and weeping widows...

soldiers too young to die. acres of grief, hope, and memories.

katty: you're watching "beyond 100 days" on pbs. 10 tweets in one morning. donald trump steps up on everyone from the press to the supreme court. christian: he is under legal pressure and clearly does not like what he is seeing in the media. katty: mourners from both sides of the aisle celebrate the public service of john mccain. >> my name is joe biden. i'm a democrat. [laughter] but i love john mccain. katty: in the u.k., frank field quits the party saying leadership is becoming a