• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Paul Haenle"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie China"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie China",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "East Asia",
    "North Korea",
    "South Korea",
    "China"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Arms Control",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie China

On Secretary of State Pompeo’s Upcoming North Korea Visit

For the visit to be a success, Pompeo should leave Pyongyang with specific details on the North Korean nuclear inventory, concrete next steps and a timeline which shows Kim is earnest in denuclearizing, and an agreement on how verification of any of the aforementioned objectives will happen.

Link Copied
By Paul Haenle
Published on Jul 5, 2018

Source: China Review News Agency

Realistic Timeline for Denuclearization Not Yet Possible

During an interview on Face the Nation this past weekend, National Security Advisor John Bolton said: “With North Korean cooperation with full disclosure of all of their chemical and biological nuclear programs ballistic missile sites…we would be able to dismantle the overwhelming bulk of their programs within a year.” This seems very unrealistic and contradicts recent statements by Trump administration officials that major steps on denuclearization could be realized by the end of Trump’s first term in office. Secretary Pompeo’s statement last week that he is “not going to put a timeline on it,” is perhaps the most realistic, and reflects the lack of substantive conversation on the process for verifiable denuclearization during and since the Singapore summit.

North Korean Nuclear Development Continues

It was no surprise to see the reports this past weekend by The Wall Street Journal and 38North that North Korea had advanced construction at a missile production facility for medium-range solid fuel missiles in May and June. A Diplomat article cited reports from the U.S. National Air and Space Intelligence Center that North Korea has continued production of launch vehicles and support equipment for its medium-range missiles. Furthermore, U.S. intelligence officials said they believe Kim is taking steps to conceal its nuclear facilities and capabilities and has more than one secret nuclear development site. These developments contradict North Korean commitments to denuclearize. They underscore concerns that President Trump declared victory in Singapore for domestic political purposes without securing significant concessions or verifiable commitments from the North. Securing a North Korean commitment to stop production, development, or research will require prolonged additional negotiations, and it is unclear what leverage the United States still holds with the Singapore summit in the past.

Don’t Expect Beijing’s Full Cooperation in Applying Economic Pressure on North Korea

Beyond building his nuclear and missile inventory, Kim is also using momentum from Panmunjom and Singapore to lessen economic pressure. Some reports indicate that Beijing may be willing to relax economic pressure on the North outside of the UN framework in order to encourage Kim to adopt economic reforms similar to those China has undertaken. Indeed, during Kim’s latest meeting with Xi, Kim is reported to have asked China to help lift economic sanctions. China also continues to try to promote its model of reform and opening through site visits during Kim’s multiple recent trips to China. In addition, on July 1, Kim traveled to the Hwanggumpyong Exclusive Industrial Zone co-developed with China, another reminder of the economic potential between the two countries.

Pompeo’s Trip: an Inflection Point

Secretary Pompeo will travel to North Korea this week, and the outcomes of his discussions will be the best indications yet of whether actual progress towards denuclearization is possible. There is much to be discussed, but for the visit to be a success, he should leave Pyongyang with specific details on the North Korean nuclear inventory, concrete next steps and a timeline which shows Kim is earnest in denuclearizing, and an agreement on how verification of the aforementioned objectives will happen. Reports that Pompeo has solicited a series of proposals on how denuclearization might occur are positive indications that he hopes to achieve the above and leave Pyongyang having made real progress. However, the same concerns voiced ahead of Trump’s meeting in Singapore remain, and it would be a major disappointment if he secures nothing further than the vague language to “work towards” denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. If now is to really be any different from before, real specifics are needed.

This article was originally published in Chinese by China Review News Agency.

About the Author

Paul Haenle

Former Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair, Carnegie China

Paul Haenle held the Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and is a visiting senior research fellow at the East Asian Institute, National University of Singapore. He served as the White House China director on the National Security Council staffs of former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Carnegie China Scholars on the Biden-Xi Meeting
      • +1

      Paul Haenle, Xue Gong, Ngeow Chow Bing, …

  • Q&A
    Biden and Xi Meet at APEC

      Paul Haenle, Chong Ja Ian

Paul Haenle
Former Maurice R. Greenberg Director’s Chair, Carnegie China
Paul Haenle
SecurityMilitaryArms ControlForeign PolicyNuclear PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesEast AsiaNorth KoreaSouth KoreaChina

Carnegie 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 Endowment for International Peace

  • A shadow man holds a shadow drone against a blue sky with clouds.
    Article
    The New Revolution in Military Affairs

    How Ukraine is driving doctrinal change in modern warfare.

      • Andriy Zagorodnyuk

      Andriy Zagorodnyuk

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    What’s Having More Impact on Russian Oil Export Revenues: Ukrainian Strikes or Rising Prices?

    Although Ukrainian strikes have led to a noticeable decline in the physical volume of Russian oil exports, the rise in prices has more than made up for it.

      • Sergey Vakulenko

      Sergey Vakulenko

  • Shipping port at dawn from above
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The U.S. Export-Import Bank Was Built for a Different Era. Here's How to Fix It.

    Five problems—and solutions—to make it actually work as a tool of great power competition.

      • Afren Akhter

      Afreen Akhter

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia Is Meddling for Meddling’s Sake in the Middle East

    The Russian leadership wants to avoid a dangerous precedent in which it is squeezed out of Iran by the United States and Israel—and left powerless to respond in any meaningful way.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Man speaking into two mics
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Three Scenarios for the Gulf States After the Iran War

    One is hopeful. One is realistic. One is cautionary.

      • Andrew Leber

      Andrew Leber, Sam Worby

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.