拜登當選為美國下一任總統後，外界普遍預測他會大幅修正特朗普政府時期的非常規內外政策，朝核問題作為美國外交的重要議題也面臨調整。

目前普遍的一種悲觀觀點認為，朝核問題對拜登政府的重要性比以前大幅下降，拜登會回歸奧巴馬政府的“戰略忍耐”政策，這對朝核問題的解決不是利好。連當事者朝鮮似乎也有類似認知。迄今為止，朝鮮媒體遲遲沒有報道拜登當選的消息，而此前通常十天內就會報道美國大選結果。

然而，若仔細審視當前朝核問題的處境、有關各方的利益訴求和政策考量，我們仍能找到推動朝核問題取得一定進展的有利因素，因而應對朝核問題的前景保持謹慎樂觀。

首先，朝核問題的時空環境與奧巴馬時期有了質的變化。奧巴馬政府曾經長期推行“戰略忍耐”政策，拒絕與朝鮮對話接觸，寄希望於通過制裁讓朝鮮崩潰。韓國朴槿惠政府當時也提出了“統一大發論”，一廂情願地用一個買彩票中大獎的術語描述朝鮮政權突然崩潰的前景。其前提和假設是年輕的金正恩剛剛執政，朝鮮政權充滿不確定性，但這種觀點低估了朝鮮政權的生存能力、發展核導的技術能力和戰略決心。事實上，金正恩執政以來不僅穩固了統治，在經濟和核導發展上也都有所成就。正是奧巴馬政府消極拖延的做法，一再錯失朝鮮呼籲談判的契機，讓朝鮮肆無忌憚地發展起核導武器。

2018年以來，朝鮮與中國、俄羅斯等傳統友邦的關係逐漸穩固，有了穩固的戰略後方。朝鮮核導能力增強，日益斷絕了美國動武的念頭，但如果繼續“戰略忍耐”，單一維度地企圖通過制裁迫使朝鮮屈服，只會使朝鮮繼續增加核武數量和能力，對美國和其盟國的安全威脅更大。因此，對朝談判接觸更符合美國利益，核問題已經不具備長期拖延和“忍耐”的餘地。

其次，拜登政府在朝核問題上更為務實，將有助於朝核問題取得進展。特朗普即興、反常規的外交風格實現了美朝關係的歷史性突破，但也存在明顯缺點。朝核問題長期積累，高度複雜，而特朗普政府好大喜功和慣於作秀，低估了這種複雜性，這導致它長期無法構建全面細緻的對朝政策團隊，無法制定全面綜合的朝核方案。2019年河內峰會後，美國的對朝政策就蛻化為類似於奧巴馬的“新戰略忍耐”。固然拜登在對朝政策上會更堅持原則，但也會更務實。在美朝已經通過新加坡峰會建立起高層溝通機制後，拜登主張的自下而上的實務會談理應成為今後主要的溝通方式。拜登提名的國務卿布林肯曾參與伊核協議制定，該協議涉及大量的技術和具體政策細節，由大量軍控、外交專家參與。這種經驗也有利於美朝雙方在談判中尋找共識，逐步實現務實的談判。

第三，拜登重視與中國、盟友在朝核問題上的多邊合作，也找到了解決朝核問題的關鍵。朝核問題是涉及多邊的地緣政治問題，美朝雙邊根本無法解決。無核化符合中美兩國的共同利益，朝核問題應當是中美合作的亮點。特朗普政府採用美朝雙邊方式推動朝核問題，又全方位打壓中國，中美此前圍繞朝核問題的合作陷入停滯，朝核問題註定難以推進。拜登公開強調，要通過與中國、韓國之間的多邊合作來推動朝核問題解決，這有利於朝核問題的國際合作，有利於美國與朝鮮進行更為綜合全面的會談。

最後，朝鮮當前的困難處境也決定了其願意通過參與朝核談判來緩和外界制裁，這為美朝談判提供了契機。今年，朝鮮遭遇制裁、疫情和自然災害的三重打擊，經濟異常困難。近日，韓國國情院在國會質詢時透露，朝鮮在外貿、工農業生產、外匯保有量等許多方面的經濟數據已接近90年代苦難行軍時期。因此，朝鮮再進行核導試驗的收益不大，風險卻很大。國情院還披露，近期朝鮮嚴令海外使領館人員不要招惹美國，也反映了朝鮮對美國新政府抱有期待。

綜上所述，朝核問題仍然存在取得漸進式突破的空間和條件。當然，有條件並非代表朝核問題就能迎刃而解。各方應努力為朝核談判創造契機，特別是中國、俄羅斯、韓國等應積極推動美朝恢復對話，並在半島和平機制、無核化方式方面提出更有創造力的方案。美朝雙方也應意識到，繼續談判是符合各方利益的共贏之舉，任由核問題“自由漂移”會造成更大的危機。

After Joe Biden was elected president of the United States, it was widely predicted that he would reverse and revise many of the Trump administration's unconventional domestic and foreign policies. The DPRK nuclear issue is one of those that needs an adjustment.

Currently, pessimists hold that the importance of the DPRK nuclear issue has declined significantly for the Biden administration, and that Biden will return to the Obama administration's “strategic patience” policy, which is not good for resolving matters.Even the DPRK seems to agree. To date, the DPRK media have been slow to report Biden's election, whereas they have usually reported the U.S. election results within 10 days.

However, if we examine the current situation, and the interests and policy considerations of all parties involved, we can still find favorable factors for progress and should remain cautiously optimistic about the future.

First, the time and space environment of the nuclear issue has changed qualitatively from the Obama era. That administration had long pursued the “strategic patience” option, refusing to engage in dialogue with the DPRK in the hope that sanctions would cause it to collapse.In the Republic of Korea at the time, President Park Geun-hye referred to unification as a “jackpot,” wishfully invoking the gambling term to describe the sudden collapse of the DPRK regime based on the assumption that a young Kim Jong-un had just come to power and that the DPRK regime was full of uncertainty. This view underestimated the regime's viability, ability to develop nuclear missiles and strategic resolve.In fact, since coming to power, Kim Jong-un has not only consolidated his rule but also taken steps toward economic and nuclear missile development. It was the Obama administration's passive and dilatory approach, which repeatedly missed North Korea's calls for negotiations, that allowed the Kim to develop missiles with impunity.

Since 2018, the DPRK's relations with its traditional friends, including China and Russia, have become stronger, and it now has a solid strategic backing. The DPRK's increased nuclear missile capability has increasingly weakened the U.S. desire to use force.Continued strategic patience and one-dimensional attempts to force the DPRK to yield through sanctions will only result in more nuclear weapons and capabilities, posing an even greater threat to the security of the United States and its allies. Therefore, it is in the U.S. interest to negotiate and engage with the DPRK. There is no longer any room for long-term patience on the nuclear issue.

Second, the Biden administration will be more pragmatic than Trump on the nuclear issue, which is conducive to progress on the issue. Trump's improvisational, unconventional style of diplomacy has achieved a historic breakthrough in U.S.-DPRK relations, but there are obvious shortcomings.The DPRK nuclear issue has been accumulating for a long time and is highly complex. The Trump administration, underestimating this complexity, has been too ambitious and too ready to put on a show. It has been unable to build a detailed policy team on the issue for a long time and has been unable to develop a comprehensive and integrated program for resolving it. After the Hanoi summit in 2019, U.S. policy toward the DPRK morphed into a new kind of strategic patience similar to that of Obama.Biden will be more principled in his policy toward the DPRK, but he will also be more pragmatic. Since the U.S. and the DPRK have already established a high-level communication mechanism through the Singapore summit, Biden's advocacy of bottom-up substantive talks indicates this may become the primary means of communication in the near term.Biden's nominee for secretary of state, Antony Blinken, was involved in the development of the Iran nuclear deal, which involved a large number of technical and specific policy details, as well as a large number of arms control and diplomatic experts. This experience will help the U.S. and the DPRK find common ground in negotiations and gradually achieve a practical outcome.

Third, Biden's emphasis on multilateral cooperation with China and allies is the key to resolving the nuclear issue, which is of multilateral geopolitical concern and cannot be resolved solely by the United States and the DPRK. Denuclearization is in the common interest of both China and the U.S., so the DPRK nuclear issue could be a highlight of cooperation.The Trump administration has adopted a bilateral approach to resolving the issue, while also suppressing China on all fronts, which has stalled previous U.S.-China cooperation on the Korean peninsula. Biden has publicly emphasized the need to promote a resolution of the issue through multilateral cooperation with China and the ROK, which is conducive to international cooperation and to more comprehensive talks between the U.S. and the DPRK.

Finally, the DPRK's current difficult situation influences its willingness to seek an easing of external sanctions by engaging in nuclear negotiations. This presents another opportunity for negotiations. This year, the DPRK has been hit by a triple whammy of sanctions, a pandemic and natural disasters, and it is suffering exceptional economic hardship.Recently, the National Intelligence Service of the ROK said during parliamentary questioning that the DPRK's economic data on foreign trade, agricultural and industrial production, foreign exchange holdings and many other areas reveal a situation close to that of the hard march of the 1990s. Therefore, the potential benefits of a further nuclear missile test are small, while the risks are high. Under questioning, the intelligence service also noted that the DPRK had recently instructed its overseas embassy and consulate personnel not to provoke the United States, reflecting hopeful expectations for the new U.S. administration.

In summary, there are still room for a breakthrough on the North Korean nuclear issue. Of course, this does not mean that the issue will be resolved easily. All parties should work to create opportunities for nuclear negotiations — especially China, Russia, and the Republic of Korea — and actively promote the resumption of U.S.-DPRK dialogue. They should also propose more creative approaches to peace and denuclearization.In the end, the U.S. and DPRK must realize that continuing negotiations is a win-win scenario that's in the best interests of all parties, and that allowing the nuclear issue to drift will only lead to a bigger crisis.