圖片來源：CNN

特朗普總統和金正恩委員長去年6月在新加坡舉行首次會晤時取得的唯一成果，是就雙邊關係和無核化發表了一份措辭模糊的聯合聲明。接下來的外交接觸並不如預期順利，只是在雙方表示希望第二次會面後才有工作層級的談判安排。也因此，河內峰會被寄予厚望，分析人士通過兩位領導人在越南的接觸尋找着希望之光。人們猜想，特朗普總統和金正恩委員長將在2月27日至28日的第二次峰會上有重大宣布。然而，此次峰會出人意料地提前結束，以未達成任何協議收場。

這背後到底發生了什麼？雙方都給出自己的解釋。按特朗普總統及其團隊的說法，會談取得了實質性進展，雙方友好分手只是因為朝鮮“希望取消（所有對朝）制裁，但卻不願意做我們想要的（無核化）”。在當天午夜舉行的記者招待會上，朝鮮外相李勇浩對特朗普的解釋提出異議，表示朝鮮只是希望解除部分制裁，並不是全部制裁。不管事實真相是什麼，即使沒有達成協議，河內峰會對雙方來說也未必是壞事。

首先，河內峰會沒有達成協議，但其結果卻為未來的協議奠定了積極的基調。雙方都試圖按照自身利益概括無協議的河內峰會，這是自然而然的。不過值得注意的是，這次美朝雙方都沒有把自己描繪成“贏家”，把對方說成是“輸家”。雙方並沒有像以往那樣指名道姓，相互指責，而是力圖用積極的語氣解釋他們在談判中做出的讓步，以及提出的要求。他們談到了會晤取得的進展、彼此立場的接近、未來取得突破的可能，以及雙方期待將來的對話“取得真正好的結果”（美國國務卿蓬佩奧語）。考慮到美朝之間漫長的談判史，雙方對此次無協議峰會能有相對積極的反應，可謂十分罕見。

其次，這次峰會後，特朗普總統對朝鮮的外交冒險有望獲得更多國內支持。與以往的美國總統不同，他沒有為同朝鮮人坐下來談判提任何先決條件。不過，新加坡峰會在無核化問題上沒有實質性收穫，人們批評他是被金正恩委員長耍了。就在對話陷入僵局時，特朗普總統決定與金正恩再次會面。許多分析人士擔心他在下次峰會上讓步太多，得到的好處太少。河內峰會在沒有簽訂協議的情況下結束後，特朗普總統獲得了來自民主、共和兩黨各政治派別的積極評價。許多人贊成特朗普的“沒有協議總好過一個糟糕的協議”。他從與朝鮮的接觸中獲得一定聲望，這也許是未來談判的一個加分項。

第三，雖然特朗普總統和金正恩委員長鍾情於去年6月峰會所使用的最高行政長官主導的方式，但該策略對於朝鮮無核化這樣複雜的問題來說是不全面的。這種自上而下的方式可以節省時間，減少官僚政治拖累，但無核化挑戰不僅僅與政治進程有關，它還涉及一系列技術、金融、法律和經濟進程。所以，工作層級的談判非常重要，不可或缺。峰會的安排更多是儀式性的，是簽協議，在讚美聲中拍照。它並不是艱苦的談判過程。應該由外交官而不是最高領導人來談判協議的九成細節。但在河內，我們看到的正好相反。

第四，務實態度在美國與朝鮮的相互交往中仍然非常重要。未能達成協議的河內峰會給我們的教訓是欲速則不達。朝鮮核問題已經存在了近30年，冰凍三尺非一日之寒。事實上，就在河內峰會之前，雙方已經制定出了初步協議，為進一步推動無核化奠定了良好、公正的基礎。但是，當雙方試圖利用峰會來索取比已有共識更多的東西時，他們各自所得到的，卻並沒有超出朝鮮暫停核試驗和美韓暫停聯合軍事演習這類單方做出的政治姿態。今後的對話若要繼續取得進展，雙方必須從最簡單的問題入手，然後再轉向更難的問題。最好是，在政治方面，美國與朝鮮攜手合作，正式結束朝鮮戰爭，雙方在對方首都建立聯絡處，並通過談判將停戰協議轉換為與其他國家的和平條約。在核方面，他們應該從拆除試驗場着手，再到實際凍結和放棄寧邊的鈈項目。在此基礎上，他們應該致力於廢除濃縮鈾項目，然後是其他有可能存在的裂變材料生產，最後是處理裂變材料庫存、彈頭和運載工具。應對所有這些艱巨挑戰必須是循序漸進的，每一步都應當與政治關係改善和同步放鬆制裁相匹配。

一些人也許認為無協議的河內峰會是失敗的，但仔細分析，這次峰會可以說還是取得了部分成功。雙方的積極基調和政治姿態為今後的談判取得進展，更重要的是為可能達成的協議打下了良好的基礎。考慮到朝鮮核計劃的現狀，以及美國在2017年時的對朝政策，除了用外交手段解決核問題之外，沒有其他可行的選項。讓我們祈禱並期待一個好結果吧。

(Photo: CNN)

When President Trump and Chairman Kim first met in Singapore last June, a vague joint statement on bilateral relations and denuclearization was the only outcome. In the following summit, diplomatic engagement did not go as well as expected, and the working-level negotiations were scheduled only after both sides indicated they wanted to meet for a second time. Thus great expectations were put on the Hanoi Summit, and analysts are searching for the silver lining from the two leaders' engagement in Vietnam. President Trump and Chairman Kim were supposed to deliver something big in their second summit held February 27-28th. However, this summit was surprisingly cut short and ended without any deal being agreed upon.

What happened behind closed doors? Both sides have offered their own explanations. According to President Trump and his team, real progress was made, and they parted ways on positive terms only because North Korea “wanted sanctions lifted [in their entirety], but they weren't willing to do an area [of denuclearization] that we wanted.” In the midnight press conference, North Korea Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho disputed President Trump's explanation by saying that North Korea asked for only partial sanction relief, instead of total removal of all sanctions. Whatever the story truly is, the Hanoi Summit, even without a deal, is not necessarily a bad thing for both sides.

First, the Hanoi Summit ended without a deal but its conclusion also struck a positive tone for a possible deal in the future. It is only natural that both parties were trying to frame the no-deal Hanoi Summit in their own favor. However, it is worth noting that this time neither the United States nor North Korea portrayed themselves as the winner and the other side as the loser. There was no more finger-pointing, naming-and-blaming tricks as in the past, and both sides were trying to explain what they had offered and asked for in the negotiation, all in a positive tone. They talked about the progress that was made, how their positions got closer, the potential for future breakthroughs, and how both sides are looking forward to further talks with the hope of “get[ting] a really good outcome,” as Secretary Pompeo said. Considering the long history of negotiation between the United States and North Korea, the relatively positive reaction to the no-deal summit from both sides stands out as quite unusual.

Second, after this summit, President Trump may be able to gain more domestic support in his diplomatic adventure with North Korea. Unlike his predecessors, he did not set any preconditions for sitting down with the North Koreans, but the Singapore Summit yielded nothing substantial on denuclearization. He was criticized as being outplayed by Chairman Kim. When talks got stuck, President Trump decided to meet Kim again. Many observers worried that he might give away too much for too little at the next summit. After the Hanoi Summit ended without a deal, President Trump received a slew of positive comments across the political spectrum, from both Democrats and Republicans. Many agreed with President Trump that no deal is better than a bad deal, and he earned some credit in his engagement with North Korea. That could be a plus for future talks.

Third, while President Trump and Chairman Kim favored the same executive-led approach used at last June's summit, this strategy is not comprehensive enough for such a complicated issue as Korean denuclearization. This top-down approach could save time and reduce the burden of bureaucratic politics, but the challenge of denuclearization is not only about the political process, but also about a range of technical, financial, legal, and economic processes. Therefore, working-level negotiations are far too important to skip. When a summit is scheduled, it is more of a ceremony to sign agreements, a glorified photo-op, and less of a grueling negotiation process. It is the diplomats rather than the top leaders who are supposed to negotiate 90 percent of a possible deal's details — in the Hanoi Summit, we saw the reverse.

Fourth, pragmatism remains very important for both the United States and North Korea when dealing with each other. Haste makes waste, as we can learn from the no-deal Hanoi Summit. The North Korean nuclear issue has existed for almost three decades, and you just can't thaw three feet of ice in one day. In fact, just before the Hanoi Summit, both sides had developed tentative agreements to lay down a good, fair basis for further progress in denuclearization — but when the two sides attempted to use the summit to extract more than what had been agreed upon, each got nothing more than unilateral political gestures such as North Korea's nuclear test moratorium and the temporary halt of U.S.-South Korean joint military drills. If they want to move forward in future talks, both parties need to start from the easiest issue and then move on to the more difficult ones. Preferably, on the political front, the United States could work with North Korea to officially end the Korean War, the two could establish liaison offices in both capitals, and negotiate so that an armistice agreement could transform into a peace treaty with other countries. On the nuclear front, they ought to move from demolishing test sites to actually freezing and dismantling the plutonium program in Yongbyon. From there, they should work towards dismantling the uranium program, and then other possible fissile material production, and finally deal with fissile material stockpiles, warheads, and delivery means. All these daunting challenges should be dealt with one by one, and each move should be matched by an improvement of political relations, and proportional sanction relief.

Some may say that the no-deal Hanoi Summit was a failure, but when analyzed in detail, this summit could be considered as a partial success. The positive tone and the political gestures made on both sides lay down a good foundation for progress in future talks and, more importantly, a possible deal. Considering the current state of North Korea's nuclear program and American policy toward North Korea back in 2017, there is no viable alternative other than a diplomatic solution for the nuclear issue. Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope for the best!