The "unexpected" meeting between US President Donald Trump and the leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Kim Jong Un at the Demilitarized Zone on June 30, 2019 made Trump the first US president in office to set foot on DPRK soil. With warm greetings, handshakes, and walking side-by-side, the two leaders met at Panmunjom, the historical site that witnessed the signing of the Korean War Armistice 66 years ago.

It was an exhilarating and inspiring moment for not only the media in attendance but also people around the world, given the recent diplomatic setbacks between Washington and Pyongyang, especially since the failure of Hanoi Summit in late February 2019.

To meet his DPRK counterpart, Trump came a long way, though this meeting was purposely made to appear "spur of the moment". Fortunately, Kim did not embarrass Trump. Kim even invited Trump to enter the DPRK.

For Trump, although this brief "get-together" at the DMZ was an opportune and exciting diplomatic breakthrough, it was more or less a stumbling-in. The point is that things between the two leaders have not been going as well as intended.

For example, the first meeting in Singapore was a glamorous appearance in front of the whole world for both Kim and Trump, during which both agreed on several fundamental issues including "to establish new US-DPRK relations" and "joint efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula". However, their second encounter in Hanoi turned out to be a dud, if not a disaster, despite high political expectations from both sides before the meeting. Political impetuousness at the policy level might have contributed to Washington's miscalculation of the situation before the two leaders arrived in Hanoi.

During the past few months after the failure in Hanoi, divergences between Trump and his hawkish policy advisers in respect to a number of crucial issues including Washington's DPRK policy became increasingly apparent, indicating that Trump, based on his preference for personal diplomacy, might take greater initiative at a certain point. In the meantime, with the presidential election nearing, there was a strong incentive for Trump to make some new "eye-catching" diplomatic progress abroad. To meet with Kim at the current moment therefore would be a good choice. Although a very "Trump-Style" move, his "stepping over the line" was nevertheless better than his administration's previous "all-or-nothing".

Meanwhile, there was of course skepticism over this quick meeting, with some arguing that such an "unexpected" brief encounter might raise expectations too high before either side makes actual and solid progress. Victor Cha, Georgetown University professor and a senior adviser in Washington, said that without making any "verifiable agreement and a peace treaty," the Trump-Kim meeting was "just some nice pics and pageantry". Given the current difficult situation on the Korean Peninsula, Cha's critique has some merit. But in the big picture, the Trump-Kim meeting at the DMZ certainly went beyond just a symbolic handshake.

It reminds us of the important role of leader diplomacy in the political resolution of the Korean Peninsula, particularly when there is a "certain chemistry" between Trump and Kim, as Trump described it to the journalists. The meeting on June 30, therefore, was not merely a reality TV show or a political flash-in-the-pan. It proved both leaders have a strong political drive and motivation to push forward a resolution to the Korean Peninsula issue, especially after a few diplomatic setbacks. The personal chemistry between the two leaders is something subtle but definitely important and may allow the two leaders to try and build up lasting mutual trust. Does interpersonal ties between the two leaders matter in the resolution of the Korean Peninsula? Yes. Definitely.

Nevertheless, Rome was not built in a day, and there's still a long way to go considering the extremely complex nature of the Korean Peninsula issue. The diplomatic setbacks between the US and the DPRK in the past few months is actually nothing more than a microcosm of the enduring conundrum on the Peninsula that has lasted decades.

Probably the most constructive and feasible approach for all involved parties is to first agree on the ultimate goal, and next to focus on the phrased steps. If Trump and his administration can play a key role in the process of approaching, if not necessarily realizing, this ultimate goal, it would still be a lasting achievement of Trump's presidency.

Last but not least, June 30, 2019, also marked the first-ever trilateral meeting, admittedly an unofficial and brief trilateral greeting, among the leaders of the US, the DPRK and the Republic of Korea, with the ROK President Moon Jae-in exchanging words with Kim and Trump. This may give us some incentive to think about the future multilateral framework for a political resolution to the Korean Peninsula issue. There has been a multilateral mechanism among diplomatic delegates and officials from the involved parties, for example, the Six-Party-Talks. When the time is ripe, perhaps it be feasible and helpful to have a multilateral mechanism among state leaders of involved parties that may play some unique role to further the final resolution of the Korean Peninsula issue.

The author is an associate professor at the Guangdong Academy of Social Sciences and a visiting fellow of Grandview Institution.

The author contributed this article to China Watch exclusively. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of China Watch.

All rights reserved. Copying or sharing of any content for other than personal use is prohibited without prior written permission.