The Hanoi Summit – We Asked Joshua Nezam What Happens Next in U.S.-North Korea Relations

Joshua Nezam

Security, Asia

"Unless voices in Washington can mobilize a political shift from short-term denuclearization towards threat reduction and arms control, the current window of rapprochement could close rapidly."

President Trump’s “grand bargain” proposal in Hanoi outlined his objective (short-term, complete disarmament) and preferred sequencing (swift disarmament followed by complete sanctions relief). The disagreements voiced suggest that a near-term compromise exists if Pyongyang is willing to dismantle most—but not all—of its nuclear architecture and Washington endorses sequenced sanctions relief, consenting to the retention of a limited nuclear program for the foreseeable future as a process unfolds. But this compromise now appears a fantasy.

Since Hanoi, National Security Advisor Bolton has become the public face of the Administration’s North Korea policy, hardening the U.S. negotiating posture by defining denuclearization to encompass the enrichment and reprocessing architecture, missile program, and biological and chemical weapons. Until North Korea dismantles these capabilities, Bolton insists Kim will receive no sanctions relief.

The Trump administration’s objective of denuclearization in the near-term will likely go unchanged—despite its incredibility—because the consensus in Washington is that Trump was right to walk away in Hanoi. Despite the increased costs of deterring a growing nuclear program and the heightened risks of instability if sanctions are maintained, few in Congress are willing to advocate for a sequenced approach if it is politically disparaged as de facto acceptance of North Korea as a nuclear state.