拜登当选为美国下一任总统后，外界普遍预测他会大幅修正特朗普政府时期的非常规内外政策，朝核问题作为美国外交的重要议题也面临调整。

目前普遍的一种悲观观点认为，朝核问题对拜登政府的重要性比以前大幅下降，拜登会回归奥巴马政府的“战略忍耐”政策，这对朝核问题的解决不是利好。连当事者朝鲜似乎也有类似认知。迄今为止，朝鲜媒体迟迟没有报道拜登当选的消息，而此前通常十天内就会报道美国大选结果。

然而，若仔细审视当前朝核问题的处境、有关各方的利益诉求和政策考量，我们仍能找到推动朝核问题取得一定进展的有利因素，因而应对朝核问题的前景保持谨慎乐观。

首先，朝核问题的时空环境与奥巴马时期有了质的变化。奥巴马政府曾经长期推行“战略忍耐”政策，拒绝与朝鲜对话接触，寄希望于通过制裁让朝鲜崩溃。韩国朴槿惠政府当时也提出了“统一大发论”，一厢情愿地用一个买彩票中大奖的术语描述朝鲜政权突然崩溃的前景。其前提和假设是年轻的金正恩刚刚执政，朝鲜政权充满不确定性，但这种观点低估了朝鲜政权的生存能力、发展核导的技术能力和战略决心。事实上，金正恩执政以来不仅稳固了统治，在经济和核导发展上也都有所成就。正是奥巴马政府消极拖延的做法，一再错失朝鲜呼吁谈判的契机，让朝鲜肆无忌惮地发展起核导武器。

2018年以来，朝鲜与中国、俄罗斯等传统友邦的关系逐渐稳固，有了稳固的战略后方。朝鲜核导能力增强，日益断绝了美国动武的念头，但如果继续“战略忍耐”，单一维度地企图通过制裁迫使朝鲜屈服，只会使朝鲜继续增加核武数量和能力，对美国和其盟国的安全威胁更大。因此，对朝谈判接触更符合美国利益，核问题已经不具备长期拖延和“忍耐”的余地。

其次，拜登政府在朝核问题上更为务实，将有助于朝核问题取得进展。特朗普即兴、反常规的外交风格实现了美朝关系的历史性突破，但也存在明显缺点。朝核问题长期积累，高度复杂，而特朗普政府好大喜功和惯于作秀，低估了这种复杂性，这导致它长期无法构建全面细致的对朝政策团队，无法制定全面综合的朝核方案。2019年河内峰会后，美国的对朝政策就蜕化为类似于奥巴马的“新战略忍耐”。固然拜登在对朝政策上会更坚持原则，但也会更务实。在美朝已经通过新加坡峰会建立起高层沟通机制后，拜登主张的自下而上的实务会谈理应成为今后主要的沟通方式。拜登提名的国务卿布林肯曾参与伊核协议制定，该协议涉及大量的技术和具体政策细节，由大量军控、外交专家参与。这种经验也有利于美朝双方在谈判中寻找共识，逐步实现务实的谈判。

第三，拜登重视与中国、盟友在朝核问题上的多边合作，也找到了解决朝核问题的关键。朝核问题是涉及多边的地缘政治问题，美朝双边根本无法解决。无核化符合中美两国的共同利益，朝核问题应当是中美合作的亮点。特朗普政府采用美朝双边方式推动朝核问题，又全方位打压中国，中美此前围绕朝核问题的合作陷入停滞，朝核问题注定难以推进。拜登公开强调，要通过与中国、韩国之间的多边合作来推动朝核问题解决，这有利于朝核问题的国际合作，有利于美国与朝鲜进行更为综合全面的会谈。

最后，朝鲜当前的困难处境也决定了其愿意通过参与朝核谈判来缓和外界制裁，这为美朝谈判提供了契机。今年，朝鲜遭遇制裁、疫情和自然灾害的三重打击，经济异常困难。近日，韩国国情院在国会质询时透露，朝鲜在外贸、工农业生产、外汇保有量等许多方面的经济数据已接近90年代苦难行军时期。因此，朝鲜再进行核导试验的收益不大，风险却很大。国情院还披露，近期朝鲜严令海外使领馆人员不要招惹美国，也反映了朝鲜对美国新政府抱有期待。

综上所述，朝核问题仍然存在取得渐进式突破的空间和条件。当然，有条件并非代表朝核问题就能迎刃而解。各方应努力为朝核谈判创造契机，特别是中国、俄罗斯、韩国等应积极推动美朝恢复对话，并在半岛和平机制、无核化方式方面提出更有创造力的方案。美朝双方也应意识到，继续谈判是符合各方利益的共赢之举，任由核问题“自由漂移”会造成更大的危机。

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.