图片来源：CNN

特朗普总统和金正恩委员长去年6月在新加坡举行首次会晤时取得的唯一成果，是就双边关系和无核化发表了一份措辞模糊的联合声明。接下来的外交接触并不如预期顺利，只是在双方表示希望第二次会面后才有工作层级的谈判安排。也因此，河内峰会被寄予厚望，分析人士通过两位领导人在越南的接触寻找着希望之光。人们猜想，特朗普总统和金正恩委员长将在2月27日至28日的第二次峰会上有重大宣布。然而，此次峰会出人意料地提前结束，以未达成任何协议收场。

这背后到底发生了什么？双方都给出自己的解释。按特朗普总统及其团队的说法，会谈取得了实质性进展，双方友好分手只是因为朝鲜“希望取消（所有对朝）制裁，但却不愿意做我们想要的（无核化）”。在当天午夜举行的记者招待会上，朝鲜外相李勇浩对特朗普的解释提出异议，表示朝鲜只是希望解除部分制裁，并不是全部制裁。不管事实真相是什么，即使没有达成协议，河内峰会对双方来说也未必是坏事。

首先，河内峰会没有达成协议，但其结果却为未来的协议奠定了积极的基调。双方都试图按照自身利益概括无协议的河内峰会，这是自然而然的。不过值得注意的是，这次美朝双方都没有把自己描绘成“赢家”，把对方说成是“输家”。双方并没有像以往那样指名道姓，相互指责，而是力图用积极的语气解释他们在谈判中做出的让步，以及提出的要求。他们谈到了会晤取得的进展、彼此立场的接近、未来取得突破的可能，以及双方期待将来的对话“取得真正好的结果”（美国国务卿蓬佩奥语）。考虑到美朝之间漫长的谈判史，双方对此次无协议峰会能有相对积极的反应，可谓十分罕见。

其次，这次峰会后，特朗普总统对朝鲜的外交冒险有望获得更多国内支持。与以往的美国总统不同，他没有为同朝鲜人坐下来谈判提任何先决条件。不过，新加坡峰会在无核化问题上没有实质性收获，人们批评他是被金正恩委员长耍了。就在对话陷入僵局时，特朗普总统决定与金正恩再次会面。许多分析人士担心他在下次峰会上让步太多，得到的好处太少。河内峰会在没有签订协议的情况下结束后，特朗普总统获得了来自民主、共和两党各政治派别的积极评价。许多人赞成特朗普的“没有协议总好过一个糟糕的协议”。他从与朝鲜的接触中获得一定声望，这也许是未来谈判的一个加分项。

第三，虽然特朗普总统和金正恩委员长钟情于去年6月峰会所使用的最高行政长官主导的方式，但该策略对于朝鲜无核化这样复杂的问题来说是不全面的。这种自上而下的方式可以节省时间，减少官僚政治拖累，但无核化挑战不仅仅与政治进程有关，它还涉及一系列技术、金融、法律和经济进程。所以，工作层级的谈判非常重要，不可或缺。峰会的安排更多是仪式性的，是签协议，在赞美声中拍照。它并不是艰苦的谈判过程。应该由外交官而不是最高领导人来谈判协议的九成细节。但在河内，我们看到的正好相反。

第四，务实态度在美国与朝鲜的相互交往中仍然非常重要。未能达成协议的河内峰会给我们的教训是欲速则不达。朝鲜核问题已经存在了近30年，冰冻三尺非一日之寒。事实上，就在河内峰会之前，双方已经制定出了初步协议，为进一步推动无核化奠定了良好、公正的基础。但是，当双方试图利用峰会来索取比已有共识更多的东西时，他们各自所得到的，却并没有超出朝鲜暂停核试验和美韩暂停联合军事演习这类单方做出的政治姿态。今后的对话若要继续取得进展，双方必须从最简单的问题入手，然后再转向更难的问题。最好是，在政治方面，美国与朝鲜携手合作，正式结束朝鲜战争，双方在对方首都建立联络处，并通过谈判将停战协议转换为与其他国家的和平条约。在核方面，他们应该从拆除试验场着手，再到实际冻结和放弃宁边的钚项目。在此基础上，他们应该致力于废除浓缩铀项目，然后是其他有可能存在的裂变材料生产，最后是处理裂变材料库存、弹头和运载工具。应对所有这些艰巨挑战必须是循序渐进的，每一步都应当与政治关系改善和同步放松制裁相匹配。

一些人也许认为无协议的河内峰会是失败的，但仔细分析，这次峰会可以说还是取得了部分成功。双方的积极基调和政治姿态为今后的谈判取得进展，更重要的是为可能达成的协议打下了良好的基础。考虑到朝鲜核计划的现状，以及美国在2017年时的对朝政策，除了用外交手段解决核问题之外，没有其他可行的选项。让我们祈祷并期待一个好结果吧。

(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!