October 29, 2018

How to tell if North Korea is serious about denuclearization

By Duyeon Kim

Since the Singapore summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in June, Pyongyang has made gestures and statements suggesting that it will curtail its nuclear-missile programs. However, in the absence of a nuclear deal between Washington and Pyongyang, the North’s nuclear arsenal continues to expand, and the regime continues to violate UN Security Council Resolutions that prohibit nuclear and missile-related activities.

With preparations for a second Trump-Kim summit underway, how should the international community determine what initial denuclearization steps really count? As Washington and Seoul engage with North Korea diplomatically, they have a rare opportunity to persuade the regime that surrendering its nuclear weapons and programs will in fact lead to a brighter future and eventual peace on the Korean Peninsula. But observers need to distinguish steps that are symbolic at best from those that demonstrate Pyongyang’s seriousness. Grabbing hold of whatever Pyongyang offers indiscriminately will only weaken Washington’s future negotiating position.

Before deciding what does constitute a meaningful or serious offer from North Korea, it is helpful to consider what does not. The broad targets of North Korea’s denuclearization should include: the regime’s fissile and thermonuclear material production programs, its nuclear weaponization program, its nuclear weapons and related missiles and other delivery systems, its proliferation programs, and its illicit trade and smuggling networks. Each element is comprised of various facilities, materials, and technologies. With that level of complexity, North Korea could divide each target into multiple steps to offer as bargaining chips, a tactic known as “salami slicing.” And while some initial steps in isolation may be noteworthy or even meaningful, they could actually become relatively meaningless depending on the context.

Read the full article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

  • Reports
    • January 6, 2019
    The Financing of WMD Proliferation (JCE TEST)

    The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a critical threat facing the international community. Numerous United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) place b...

    By Jonathan Brewer

  • Commentary
    • The Hill
    • November 16, 2018
    Leverage the new US International Development Finance Corporation to compete with China

    The United States has a unique opportunity to up its game in the global economic competition with China. In early October, even as Democrats and Republicans in the Senate enga...

    By Daniel Kliman

  • Video
    • November 16, 2018
    On GPS: The future of US-China relations

    Former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell breaks down the factions and relationships shaping US-China relations. View the full vide...

    By Kurt Campbell

  • Commentary
    • War on the Rocks
    • November 15, 2018
    Assessing America's Indo-Pacific Budget Shortfall

    Budgets are policy in Washington. Setting new trends in Pentagon and State Department funding is a tall order, so when they do emerge, they are the strongest indication of a g...

    By Eric Sayers

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia