- +2
George Perkovich, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, Joseph Cirincione, …
{
"authors": [
"Jon Wolfsthal"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"Korean Peninsula"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"East Asia",
"North Korea"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Arms Control"
]
}Source: Getty
Trump Is Moving in the Right Direction on North Korea
The risks for a Trump-Kim summit remain high, and Trump’s notorious inconsistency and irritability cannot be dismissed.
Source: Foreign Policy
If you are a North Korea expert, your head is spinning these days. News that U.S. President Donald Trump had agreed to a risk-fraught summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un took everyone by surprise. The announcement this week that CIA Director and Secretary of State nominee Mike Pompeo had visited Pyongyang and met with Kim gave already dizzy brains another turn—although the news is more reassuring than not.
Using diplomacy, backed by sanctions and strong alliances, to stop and roll back North Korea’s nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs has been the goal of multiple Republican and Democratic administrations. I have been part of such efforts in the last two Democratic administrations—in the 1990s, on the ground, implementing the Agreed Framework that froze North Korea’s nuclear efforts for almost a decade through engagement, and under President Barack Obama’s administration, ensuring that North Korea was isolated and starved of money and resources until it agreed to talk real denuclearization. Progress toward engaging with North Korea through diplomacy should have strong bipartisan support, even if the process to get to this point has been unconventional.
The risks for a Trump-Kim summit remain high, and Trump’s notorious inconsistency and irritability cannot be dismissed. But Trump’s disclosure that Pompeo and Kim met has put to rest one of the biggest concerns surrounding the U.S.-North Korea summit — that Trump might prepare insufficiently and try to wing it. Anyone who has worked on North Korea should welcome the decision to pursue serious diplomacy.
Pompeo is Trump’s most trusted foreign-policy advisor. While extreme and hawkish on many issues, he is both very intelligent and well informed by his knowledgeable CIA staff. This in no way guarantees a positive summit outcome, but it does reduce the risk that the United States and North Korea talk past each other on the issue of denuclearization or that South Korean leaders, eager to avoid a conflict, have inaccurately reported what Kim has said about a desire to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons.
It remains more likely than not that Kim’s strategy is to gain status and legitimacy and to play the United States and South Korea against one another. Trump’s rash language over the past year, his decision to impose tariffs on South Korea, and the reported U.S. decision to try to charge South Korea for the cost of deploying missile defenses and of strategic bomber flights have all made this approach easier for North Korea. However, as the U.S. president and his top lieutenants get more invested and involved in a summit, the harder it will be for diplomacy to fail. Investments in prestige and effort may create momentum for sustained engagement that hopefully will pay off. Trump may rightly sense that he does not want to be blamed should the summit fail, and Kim may feel the same way, creating an almost perverse incentive for success.
Many experienced government security experts were understandably worried that a reflexive and impulsive Trump would expect Kim to disarm because of his toughness and superior negotiating skills. Maybe Trump still believes this will be the edge that allows him to succeed where others, including Obama, have failed. Regardless, finding out if a deal is really possible, and on what terms, helps ensure alliance credibility and unity—and leaves the door open for much-needed de-escalation and communication tools.
Despite obvious reasons to be skeptical, and larger concerns about Trump’s handling of many other issues, the world should welcome and encourage real diplomatic efforts to pursue a more stable and less nuclear Korean Peninsula. It is also encouraging that senior U.S. officials are working on the details, since the mechanics of verifying a deal that locks in the current freeze, caps North Korea’s nuclear and missile complex, and then eventually eliminates it would take many months to negotiate and years to implement, even under an intrusive and constructive set of agreements. Verification, while difficult, is achievable. Just as the United States established the access and terms needed to verify the Iran nuclear deal and the New START agreement with Russia, the technological and verification aspects of an accord can fall into place if a political deal is struck.
Lastly, Trump recognizing that diplomacy takes time and hard work, and can produce real results that bring accolades, is a valuable realization. Others should encourage it, in hopes it will become a habit. It is good that the Trump administration is testing the proposition that North Korea wants to deal. Trump deserves credit for this. Let’s hope he earns more—and makes real, lasting progress.
About the Author
Former Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program
Jon Wolfsthal was a nonresident scholar with the Nuclear Policy Program.
- Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security<br>With 2007 Report Card on ProgressReport
- 10 Plus 10 Doesn’t Add UpArticle
Jon Wolfsthal
Recent Work
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie India
- On Thin Ice: Bhutan’s Diplomatic Challenge Amid the India-China Border DisputeCommentary
This piece examines the strategic implications of Bhutan’s diplomatic efforts amid its border dispute with China, highlighting the thin ice it walks on to achieve a resolution without compromising its vital relationships.
Shibani Mehta
- A Quad Initiative on Digital Public InfrastructureCommentary
With India set to host the sixth Quad Leaders' Summit in 2024, there is every opportunity for this minilateral to not only develop a DPI initiative but also execute pilots in the Indo-Pacific. This essay shares a rationale for how the four Quad countries could achieve this goal.
Rudra Chaudhuri, Aadya Gupta
- India’s Quest for Advanced Technology in the Era of Export ControlsCommentary
How can India navigate export control measures at a time when it is also entering into technology-centric partnerships with other nations to secure enhanced access to advanced technology?
Konark Bhandari
- Impasse at the LAC: An Examination of the 2013, 2014, and 2015 StandoffsArticle
This article examines the significance of the 2013, 2014, and 2015 border standoffs between India and China. It presents a detailed account of the border crises and how the two countries tried to manage them.
Shibani Mehta
- China and India Aren’t Reaching a Strategic DétenteCommentary
Contrary to some recent analyses, this commentary explains why a strategic détente between India and China is unlikely.
Saheb Singh Chadha