Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T15:23:49.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leveraging towards restraint: Nuclear hedging and North Korea's shifting reference points during the agreed framework and the Six-Party Talks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2019

Soul Park Open the ORCID record for Soul Park [Opens in a new window]  and
Kimberly Peh Open the ORCID record for Kimberly Peh [Opens in a new window]
Soul Park*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, National University of Singapore
Kimberly Peh
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Notre Dame
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The emergence of new nuclear aspirants has posed a great threat to the post-Cold War global non-proliferation regime. These states have adopted a nuclear hedging strategy that has been deemed both strategically risky and politically difficult to maintain. Yet, hedging has not automatically resulted in nuclearisation. We analyse the conditions under which a nuclear hedger shifts its nuclear policy towards one of restraint. Drawing insights from prospect theory, we argue that a nuclear policy shift occurs when a nuclear hedger gains an asymmetric leverage vis-à-vis its adversary. Specifically, a hedging strategy that is based on loss aversion will only be abandoned when a shift in the nuclear aspirant's reference point occurs during negotiations. To test our theoretical arguments, we conduct an in-depth case study of North Korea's nuclear policies throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The empirical study of the changes in North Korea's negotiating stance during the Agreed Framework negotiations and the Six-Party Talks supports our asymmetric leverage thesis. We conclude with broad policy implications for the non-proliferation regime.

Keywords

Nuclear HedgingNuclear RestraintAsymmetric LeverageAgreed FrameworkSix-Party TalksNorth Korea
Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of International Security , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 2020 , pp. 94 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Nuclear aspirants, broadly, are states that have ‘considered, developed, abandoned, or acquired nuclear weapons programs’, especially after the establishment of the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Solingen, Etel, Nuclear Logics: Contrasting Paths in East Asia and the Middle East (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), p. 3Google Scholar. On the cases and costs of proliferation, see Juneau, Thomas and Razavi, Sam, ‘Costly gains: a cost-benefit assessment of Iran's nuclear program’, The Nonproliferation Review, 25:1–2 (2018), pp. 69–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jervis, Robert, The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), p. 3Google Scholar; Miller, Nicholas L., ‘The secret success of nonproliferation sanctions’, International Organization, 68:4 (2014), pp. 913–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Narang, Vipin, ‘Strategies of nuclear proliferation: How states pursue the bomb’, International Security, 41:3 (2016/17), p. 120Google Scholar; and Levite, Ariel E., ‘Never say never again: Nuclear reversal revisited’, International Security, 27:3 (2002/03), p. 62Google Scholar.

2 Some examples from the Cold War period include Taiwan and South Korea. While neither completely dismantled their facilities to the point that it is impossible to weaponise their programmes today, both rolled back their capabilities under US pressure in the 1970s and 1980s. See Hersman, Rebecca K. C. and Peters, Robert, ‘Nuclear U-turns’, The Nonproliferation Review, 13:3 (2006), pp. 546–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 For a review of works criticising the tendency to study nuclear proliferation and nonproliferation as separate issues, see Volpe, Tristan A., ‘Atomic leverage: Compellence with nuclear latency’, Security Studies, 26:3 (2017), p. 519CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Thurber, Ches, ‘A step short of the bomb: Explaining the strategy of nuclear hedging’, Journal of Public and International Affairs, 2 (2011), p. 46Google Scholar; Einhorn, Robert J., ‘Identifying nuclear aspirants and their pathways to the bomb’, The Nonproliferation Review, 13:3 (2006), pp. 496–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Council on Foreign Relations, ‘North Korea's Weapons Programs’, available at: {https://www.cfr.org/event/north-koreas-weapons-programs} accessed 15 April 2019.

6 Jeffrey Lewis and Dave Schmerler, ‘North Korean missile base at Yeongjeo-dong’, Arms Control Wonk, available at: {https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1206442/north-korean-missile-base-at-yeongjeo-dong/} accessed 13 April 2019; Frank V. Pabian and Jack Liu, ‘North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear scientific research center: Crane seen at the experimental light water reactor’, 38 North, available at: {https://www.38north.org/2019/04/yongbyon040519/} accessed 13 April 2019.

7 David Brunnstrom, ‘North Korea may have made more nuclear bombs, but threat reduced: Study’, Reuters, available at: {https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-nuclear-study/north-korea-may-have-made-more-nuclear-bombs-but-threat-reduced-study-idUSKCN1Q10EL} accessed 13 April 2019.

8 For an overview, see Leon V. Sigal, ‘Breaking the news frame of Trump's nuclear diplomacy’, 38 North, available at: {https://www.38north.org/2018/06/lsigal062118/} accessed 13 April 2019.

9 See, for example, Olivia Enos, ‘After Failed Summit in Hanoi: Where Do We Go from Here?’, The Heritage Foundation, available at: {https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/after-failed-summit-hanoi-where-do-we- go-here} accessed 15 April 2019; Dennis P. Halpin, ‘Almost a month on, what did the Singapore summit achieve?’, NK News, available at: {https://www.nknews.org/2018/07/almost-a-month-on-what-did-the-singapore-summit-achieve/} accessed 15 April 2019; Jonathan Marcus, ‘Trump Kim summit: What did it actually achieve?’, BBC, available at: {https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44484322} accessed 15 April 2019; and Daniel R. Russel, ‘A historic breakthrough or a historic blunder in Singapore?’, Foreign Affairs, available at: {https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/north-korea/2018-06-12/historic-breakthrough-or-historic-blunder-singapore} accessed 15 April 2019.

10 Joshua Berlinger and Hilary Whiteman, ‘The pledge to halt missile tests comes after a busy year of launches by North Korea’, CNN, available at: {https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/06/asia/north-korea-missile-tests-2017-intl/index.html} accessed 13 April 2019.

11 Justin McCurry, ‘North Korea halts nuclear and missile tests ahead of planned Trump summit’, The Guardian, available at: {https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/20/north-korea-suspends-nuclear-missile-tests} accessed 26 July 2018; ‘North Korea begins dismantling key facilities at the Sohae Satellite Launching Station’, 38 North, available at: {https://www.38north.org/2018/07/sohae072318/} accessed 26 July 2018.

12 Siegfried S. Hecker, ‘Why insisting on a North Korea nuclear declaration up front is a big mistake’, 38 North, available at: {https://www.38north.org/2018/11/shecker112818/} accessed 13 April 2019.

13 Brunnstrom, ‘North Korea may have made more nuclear bombs’.

14 Among others, see Sagan, Scott D., ‘Why do states build nuclear weapons?: Three models in search of a bomb’, International Security, 21:3 (1996/1997), p. 63CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, Nicholas L., ‘Nuclear dominoes: a self-defeating prophecy?’, Security Studies, 23:1 (2014), pp. 33–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hymans, Jacques E. C., The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions and Foreign Policy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Solingen, Nuclear Logics; Rublee, Maria Rost, Nonproliferation Norms: Why States Choose Nuclear Restraint (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2009)Google Scholar; Spaniel, William, Bargaining over the Bomb: The Successes and Failures of Nuclear Negotiations (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Levite, ‘Never say never again’.

15 Wiseman, Geoffrey, ‘Introduction’, in Wiseman, Geoffrey (ed.), Isolate or Engage: Adversarial States, US Foreign Policy and Public Diplomacy (Stanford: Stanford University Press), p. 3Google Scholar.

16 Fred Kaplan, ‘Rolling blunder: How the Bush administration let North Korea get nukes’, Washington Monthly, available at: {http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/may-2004/rolling-blunder-2/} accessed 13 July 2018; Robert McMahon, ‘Negotiating with Hostile States’, Council of Foreign Relations, available at: {https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/negotiating-hostile-states} accessed 13 July 2018.

17 United States Senate, ‘Testimony of Robert Carlin Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’, available at: {https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Carlin_Testimony.pdf} accessed 12 August 2018.

18 Hymans, Jacques E. C., ‘The threat of nuclear proliferation: Perception and reality’, Ethics & International Affairs, 27:3 (2013), pp. 281–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Narang, ‘Strategies of nuclear proliferation’, p. 137. For a discussion on the challenges to and successes of the non-proliferation regime, see Potter, William C., ‘The NPT & the sources of nuclear restraint’, Daedalus, 139:1 (2010), pp. 68–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Paul, T. V., Power versus Prudence: Why Nations Forgo Nuclear Weapons (Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2000), p. 57Google Scholar; Cohen, Avner and Frankel, Benjamin, ‘Opaque nuclear proliferation’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 13:3 (1990), pp. 14–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Joseph F. Pilat, ‘Report of a Workshop on Nuclear Latency’, report presented at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, available at: {https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Report-Workshop%20on%20Nuclear%20Latency-20141002.pdf} accessed 3 May 2018. For recent discussions, see Kroenig, Matthew, ‘Exporting the bomb: Why states provide sensitive nuclear assistance’, American Political Science Review, 103:1 (2009), pp. 113–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fuhrmann, Matthew, ‘Spreading temptation: Proliferation and peaceful nuclear cooperation agreements’, International Security, 34:1 (2009), pp. 7–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Miller, Nicholas L., ‘Why nuclear energy programs rarely lead to proliferation’, International Security, 42:2 (2017), pp. 40–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 According to Wyn Bowen and Matthew Moran, ‘the fact that the concept is regularly described in political and diplomatic discourse without mention of the specific term “hedging” is perhaps indicative of a certain confusion with regard to … proliferation behaviour. This vocabulary comprises a number of overlapping terms and concepts … that are frequently used interchangeably and without discrimination.’ Bowen, Wyn and Moran, Matthew, ‘Iran's nuclear programme: a case in hedging?’, Contemporary Security Policy, 35:1 (2014), p. 27CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Mark Fitzpatrick, ‘Nuclear latency with an attitude’, International Institute for Strategic Studies, available at: {http://www.iiss.org/en/politics%20and%20strategy/blogsections/2014-d2de/october-931b/nuclear-latency-c8a6} accessed 18 June 2018.

23 Levite, ‘Never say never again’, p. 69; Narang, ‘Strategies of nuclear proliferation’, pp. 117–20. See also Reiss, Mitchell, ‘The nuclear tipping point: Why states reconsider their nuclear choices’, in Campbell, Kurt M., Einhorn, Robert J., and Reiss, Mitchell B. (eds), The Nuclear Tipping Point: Why States Reconsider their Nuclear Choices (Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press, 2004), pp. 3–17Google Scholar.

24 As Mark Bell points out, nuclear acquisition is ‘defined as the point at which the state acquires the technological capability to use nuclear weapons in the way the state envisages using them’. Bell, Mark S., ‘Beyond emboldenment: How acquiring nuclear weapons can change foreign policy’, International Security, 40:1 (2015), p. 92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bell, Mark S., ‘Nuclear opportunism: a theory of how states use nuclear weapons in international politics’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 42:1 (2019), p. 10CrossRefGoogle Scholar. North Korea still does not possess the required reentry technologies for its ICBMs to strike US mainland, assuming that is its goal for developing nuclear weapons. For more on the state of North Korea's nuclear capabilities, see Kristensen, Hans M. and Norris, Robert S., ‘North Korean nuclear capabilities, 2018’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 74:1 (2018), pp. 46–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Narang, ‘Strategies of nuclear proliferation’, pp. 117–20.

26 David J. Sweeney and William S. Charlton, ‘Latency as a Basis for Safeguard’, Transactions of the 2009 American Nuclear Society Winter Meeting, Washington, DC, 15–19 November 2009; Fuhrmann, Matthew and Tkach, Benjamin, ‘Almost nuclear: Introducing the nuclear latency dataset’, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 32:4 (2015), pp. 443–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pilat, ‘Report of a Workshop on Nuclear Latency’; Mehta, Rupal N. and Whitlark, Rachel Elizabeth, ‘The benefits and burdens of nuclear latency’, International Studies Quarterly, 61:3 (2017), pp. 517–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sagan, Scott D., ‘Nuclear latency and nuclear proliferation’, in Potter, William C. with Mukhatzhanova, Gaukhar (eds), Forecasting Nuclear Proliferation in the 21st Century: The Role of Theory (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010), pp. 80–101Google Scholar.

27 Bowen and Moran, ‘Iran's nuclear programme’, p. 32.

28 Levite, ‘Never say never again’, pp. 66, 72; Bowen and Moran, ‘Iran's nuclear programme’, pp. 30–1; Narang, ‘Strategies of nuclear proliferation’, p. 117, fn. 20. By threat potential, we do not mean that the programme is developed merely as a tool to negotiate with the great powers; in fact, few aspirants have proliferated simply to do so. See Glaser, Charles L., Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), p. 347CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Rabinowitz, Or and Miller, Nicholas L., ‘Keeping the bombs in the basement: U.S. nonproliferation policy toward Israel, South Africa, and Pakistan’, International Security, 40:1 (2015), pp. 51, 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pabian, Frank V., ‘The South African denuclearization exemplar: Insights for nonproliferation monitoring and verification’, Nonproliferation Review, 22:1 (2015), pp. 27–52, 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kitano, Mitsuru, ‘Opaque nuclear proliferation revisited: Determinants, dynamism, and policy implications’, Nonproliferation Review, 23:4 (2016), pp. 459–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Levite, ‘Never say never again’, p. 59.

31 ‘Such restraint typically pertains to refraining from the construction of certain facilities; the production (of certain or all fissionable materials), testing, assembly, or deployment of weapons; or proclamations of nuclear status.’ Levite, ‘Never say never again’, p. 68.

32 Altman, Dan and Miller, Nicholas L., ‘Red lines in nuclear nonproliferation’, Nonproliferation Review, 24:3–4 (2017), p. 317CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 John Grady, ‘Graham: Only a “Matter of Time” before North Korea Crosses a Red Line’, U.S. Naval Institute, available at: {https://news.usni.org/2018/01/17/graham-matter-time-north-korea-crosses-red-line} accessed 5 April 2019; Michael Elleman, ‘Why a formal end to North Korean missile testing makes sense’, 38 North, available at: {https://www.38north.org/2019/02/melleman022619/} accessed 5 April 2019.

34 Following Levite, we adopt a broad definition of nuclear hedging. Levite, ‘Never say never again’, p. 70.

35 Nuclear reversal may be ‘fraught with political risks’ due to the need ‘to address the security, prestige, and bureaucratic appeal of a nuclear program’. Hence, nuclear reversal hardly progresses immediately towards rollback or proceeds in a smooth linear manner since states must manage domestic resistance and other risks associated with it. Levite, ‘Never say never again’, pp. 67, 74–5. For more examples on how states have used hedging or the like to minimise risks or maximise leverage, see Hersman and Peters, ‘Nuclear U-turns’, pp. 539–53; and Volpe, ‘Atomic leverage’, pp. 517–44.

36 Volpe, ‘Atomic leverage’, p. 519; Singh, Sonali and Way, Christopher R., ‘The correlates of nuclear proliferation: a quantitative test’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 48:6 (2004), pp. 865–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Narang, Vipin, Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), p. 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bowen, Wyn, Moran, Matthew, and Esfandiary, Dina, Living on the Edge: Iran and the Practice of Nuclear Hedging (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Hersman and Peters, ‘Nuclear U-turns’, pp. 541–2. See also Gerzhoy, Gene, ‘Alliance coercion and nuclear restraint: How the United States thwarted West Germany's nuclear ambitions’, International Security, 39:4 (2015), pp. 91–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Levite, ‘Never say never again’, p. 66.

39 Bowen and Moran, ‘Iran's nuclear programme’, pp. 37–40.

40 Given that we adopt a broad definition of hedging, we acknowledge that there are other causal pathways to nuclear restraint. We identify a key causal pathway that is in accordance with loss aversion.

41 On prospect theory, see Kahneman, Daniel and Tversky, Amos, ‘Choices, values and frames’, American Psychologist, 39:4 (1984), pp. 341–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Mercer, Jonathan, ‘Prospect theory and political science’, Annual Review of Political Science, 8 (2005), pp. 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On some recent application of prospect theory to international relations, see McDermott, Rose, Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Welch, David A., Painful Choices: A Theory of Foreign Policy Change (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), chs 2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Berejikian, Jeffrey D. and Early, Bryan R., ‘Loss aversion and foreign policy resolve’, Political Psychology, 34:5 (2013), pp. 649–71Google Scholar; and Taliaferro, Jeffrey W., Balancing Risks: Great Power Intervention in the Periphery (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004)Google Scholar.

42 Levy, Jack S., ‘Prospect theory, rational choice, and international relations’, International Studies Quarterly, 41:1 (1997), p. 89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDermott, Risk-Taking in International Politics, pp. 27–9.

43 Levy, Jack S., ‘Applications of prospect theory to political science’, Synthese, 135:2 (2003), p. 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Levy, Jack S., ‘Loss aversion, framing effects, and international conflict: Perspectives from prospect theory’, in Midlarsky, Manus I. (ed.), Handbook of War Studies II (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000), p. 195Google Scholar.

45 Levy, Jack S., ‘Psychology and foreign policy decision-making’, in Huddy, Leonie, Sears, David, and Levy, Jack (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 315–16Google Scholar.

46 Berejikian and Early, ‘Loss aversion and foreign policy resolve’, pp. 650–3.

47 Doyle, James and Engstrom, Peter, ‘The utility of nuclear weapons: Tradeoffs and opportunity costs’, in Schneider, Barry R. and Dowdy, William L. (eds), Pulling Back from the Nuclear Brink: Reducing and Countering Nuclear Threats (London: Frank Cass, 1998), pp. 41, 43, 47Google Scholar.

48 Narang, ‘Strategies of nuclear proliferation’, p. 113.

49 Volkema, Roger, Leverage: How to Get It and How to Keep It in Any Negotiation (New York: Amacom, 2006), p. 3Google Scholar.

50 This inference is consistent with Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman's assertion that ‘[b]ecause a shift of reference can turn gains into losses and vice versa, it can give rise to reversals of preference.’ Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel, ‘Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106:4 (1991), p. 1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Narang, ‘Strategies of nuclear proliferation’, pp. 113–16.

52 We do not claim to be able to accurately identify a state's reference point in this article. Rather, we examine how it is adjusted through changes in preferences for action. Levy, ‘Applications of prospect theory’, p. 216; Jervis, Robert, ‘Political implications of loss aversion’, Political Psychology, 13:2 (2002/03), p. 196Google Scholar; Stommel, Evelyn, Reference-Dependent Preferences: A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of Individual Reference Point Formation (Essen, Germany: Springer Gabler, 2013), p. 97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Irrevocable commitment is a strategy intended ‘to reassure … adversaries of [a country's] benign intentions and to create incentives for negotiations’. Lebow, Richard Ned and Stein, Janice Gross, ‘Beyond deterrence’, Journal of Social Issues, 43:4 (1987), p. 47Google Scholar.

54 Sigal, ‘Breaking the news frame of Trump's nuclear diplomacy’.

55 Our arguments on the conditions of asymmetric leverage place greater emphasis on the policy changes that stem from shifts in reference point rather than changes in domains. See, for example, He, Kai and Feng, Huiyun, Prospect Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis in the Asia Pacific: Rational Leaders and Risky Behavior (New York: Routledge, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Cha, Victor D., ‘Hawk engagement and preventive defense on the Korean peninsula’, International Security, 27:1 (2002), pp. 40–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Sigal, ‘Breaking the news frame of Trump's nuclear diplomacy’; Soo Kim, ‘The Hanoi summit – we asked Soo Kim what happens next in U.S.-North Korea relations’, The National Interest, available at: {https://nationalinterest.org/blog/korea-watch/hanoi-summit-%E2%80%93-we-asked-soo-kim-what-happens-next-us-north-korea-relations-47282} accessed 13 April 2019.

57 For instance, see Jeff Weiss, Aram Donigian, and Jonathan Hughes, ‘Extreme negotiations’, Harvard Business Review, available at: {https://hbr.org/2010/11/extreme-negotiations} accessed 11 August 2018.

58 ‘Anything below this target is regarded as a loss and triggers risk-seeking behavior’, thus, individuals are willing to sink in greater costs in order to make up for the gap with the new reference point. Hardman, David, Judgment and Decision Making: Psychological Perspectives (West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009), p. 70Google Scholar.

59 George, Alexander L. and Bennett, Andrew, Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005), chs 9–10Google Scholar.

60 Goertz, Gary and Levy, Jack, ‘Causal explanation, necessary conditions, and case studies’, in Goertz, Gary and Levy, Jack S. (eds), Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary Condition Counterfactuals (London: Routledge, 2007), pp. 23–9Google Scholar.

61 McDermott, Rose, ‘Prospect theory in political science: Gains and losses from the first decade’, Political Psychology, 25:2 (2004), p. 292CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Martin, Curtis H., ‘Rewarding North Korea: Theoretical perspectives on the 1994 Agreed Framework’, Journal of Peace Research, 39:1 (2002), p. 61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Scott Snyder, ‘North Korea: Engaging a hermit adversarial state’, in Wiseman (ed.), Isolate or Engage, pp. 85–109; Litwak, Robert, Regime Change: U.S. Strategy through the Prism of 9/11 (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2007), p. viiGoogle Scholar.

63 Dingman, Roger, ‘Atomic diplomacy during the Korean War’, International Security, 13:3 (1988/89), pp. 50–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foot, Rosemary J., ‘Nuclear coercion and the ending of the Korean conflict’, International Security, 13:3 (1988/89), pp. 92–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Sigal, Leon V., Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), p. 20Google Scholar. See also Pollack, Jonathan D., No Exit: North Korea, Nuclear Weapons and International Security (London: Routledge, 2011), p. 47Google Scholar.

65 Quinones, C. Kenneth, ‘US domestic politics’ impact on policy toward North Korea: a historical perspective’, in Kwak, Tae-Hwan and Joo, Seung-Ho (eds), North Korea and Security Cooperation in Northeast Asia (Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2014), p. 94Google Scholar.

66 Mansourov, Alexandra Y., ‘The origins, evolution, and current politics of the North Korean nuclear program’, The Nonproliferation Review, 2:3 (1995), p. 28CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the influence of South Korea's nuclear plans on North Korea's decision to go nuclear, see ‘Memorandum, Hungarian Foreign Ministry’, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, MOL, XIX-J-1-j ENSZ, 1975, 159. doboz, V-730, 004711/1975, 26 August 1975. Obtained and translated for the North Korea International Documentation Project (NKIDP) by Balazs Szalontai, available at: {http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/111470} accessed 22 April 2018.

67 Report on a Conversation between the Soviet Ambassador in North Korea Vasily Moskovsky and Soviet Specialists in North Korea’, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, AVPRF, fond 0102, opis 19, papka 97, delo 5, list 185, 16 October 1963. Obtained and translated for NKIDP by Sergey Radchenko, available at: {http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/110613} accessed 22 April 2018.

68 Kim, Jina, The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Crisis: The Nuclear Taboo Revisited? (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), p. 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

69 Quinones, ‘US domestic politics’ impact on policy toward North Korea’, p. 94.

70 Xizhen, Zhang and Brown, Eugene, ‘Policies toward North Korea: a time for new thinking’, Journal of Contemporary China, 9:25 (2000), p. 537CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jackson, Van, Rival Reputations: Coercion and Credibility in US-North Korea Relations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), pp. 142–3Google Scholar; Hur, Mi-yeon, The Six-Party Talks on North Korea: Dynamic Interactions among Principal States (Singapore: Springer Nature, 2018), p. 107CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Woo, Seongji, ‘Pyongyang and the world: North Korean perspectives on international relations under Kim Jong-il’, Pacific Focus, 26:2 (2011), pp. 194–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 For instance, ‘On April 6, 1994, the DPRK Ambassador to India Cha Song-ju reportedly stated, “Our nuclear arms, if developed, would be primarily designed to contain Japan”’. Mansourov, ‘The origins, evolution, and current politics’, p. 30; Mack, Andrew, ‘The nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula’, Asian Survey, 33:4 (1993), p. 346CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

72 Sigal, Disarming Strangers, pp. 25–32.

73 In his 1972 interview with the New York Times, Premier Kim Il-sung stated DPRK's policy toward the US as follows: ‘If the United States Government stops its unfriendly attitude toward us and stops obstructing the unification of our country, then there is no reason why we should have hostile attitudes toward the United States … We demand such things – mail, visits and trade.’ ‘Excerpts from interview with North Korean premier on policy toward the U.S.’, New York Times, available at: {http://www.nytimes.com/1972/05/31/archives/excerpts-from-interview-with-north-korean-premier-on-policy-toward.html} accessed 4 December 2017. See also Leon V. Sigal, ‘Bad history’, 38 North, available at: {http://www.38north.org/2017/08/lsigal082217/} accessed 22 September 2017; Pollack, No Exit, pp. 117, 125; Joo, Hyung-min, ‘Deciphering what Pyongyang wants’, Problems of Post-Communism, 61:4 (2014), p. 26CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sigal, Disarming Strangers, pp. 38–42; and Kim, The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Crisis, pp. 65–7.

74 Sigal, Disarming Strangers, p. 14.

75 Kim, The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Crisis, pp. 24–6.

76 Mazaar, Michael J., ‘Going just a little nuclear: Nonproliferation lessons from North Korea’, International Security, 20:2 (1995), p. 95Google Scholar.

77 Kim, The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Crisis, p. 39.

78 Joo, ‘Deciphering what Pyongyang wants’, p. 30.

79 Kim, The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Crisis, p. 29; Litwak, Robert S., Preventing North Korea's Nuclear Breakout (Washington, DC: Wilson Center, 2017), p. 78Google Scholar.

80 Mazaar, ‘Going just a little nuclear’, p. 96.

81 Beal, Tim, North Korea: The Struggle against American Power (Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press, 2005), p. 78Google Scholar; ‘Interview: Jimmy Carter’, PBS, available at: {https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/interviews/carter.html} accessed 22 December 2017.

82 ‘Carter Trip Paves the Way for U.S.-North Korean Pact’, The Carter Center, available at: {https://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc221.html} accessed 17 August 2017; Wit, Joel S., Poneman, Daniel B., and Gallucci, Robert L., Going Critical: The First North Korean Nuclear Crisis (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2004), p. 207Google Scholar.

83 Barry, Mark P., ‘On a U.S. president meeting Kim Jong Un: the importance of senior-level engagement’, International Journal on World Peace, 33:3 (2016), p. 79Google Scholar; Kim, The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Crisis, pp. 76–7.

84 Wit, Poneman, and Gallucci, Going Critical, p. 233.

85 Pollack, No Exit, p. 117.

86 ‘Statement from Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations’, The Carter Center, available at: {https://www.cartercenter.org/news/pr/north-korea-081017.html} accessed 17 August 2017.

87 ‘Interview: Robert Gallucci’, PBS, available at: {https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kim/interviews/gallucci.html} accessed 23 December 2017.

88 Wit, Poneman, and Gallucci, Going Critical, pp. 230–1.

89 ‘Interview: Robert Gallucci’, PBS.

90 Mansourov, ‘The origins, evolution, and current politics’, p. 34; Pollack, No Exit, p. 117.

91 Joo, ‘Deciphering what Pyongyang wants’, p. 26.

92 ‘Statement from Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on Current U.S.-North Korea Relations’, The Carter Center.

93 Cha, Victor D., ‘What do they really want? Obama's North Korea conundrum’, The Washington Quarterly, 32:4 (2009), p. 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mansourov, ‘The origins, evolution, and current politics’, p. 33; Mazaar, ‘Going just a little nuclear’, p. 98.

94 Robert Hennelly, ‘Sanctions on North Korea may be losing their bite’, CBS News, available at: {http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-decades-of-sanctions-on-north-korea-will-more-work/} accessed 15 January 2017; ‘North Korea: Likely Response to Economic Sanctions’, National Intelligence Council, available at: {https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0005380437.pdf} accessed 15 June 2016.

95 Mansourov, ‘The origins, evolution, and current politics’, p. 36.

96 Joo, ‘Deciphering what Pyongyang wants’, p. 26.

97 Wit, Poneman, and Gallucci, Going Critical, pp. 298, 328–30.

98 ‘North Korea was not about to be bluffed. Nor was it about to comply first and hope to reap the benefits later. Only when Washington satisfied its concerns did Pyongyang relent. A strategy of cooperative security, not coercive diplomacy, accounts for the success of diplomacy in Korea.’ Sigal, Disarming Strangers, p. 9.

99 Pollack, No Exit, p. 118.

100 The guarantee further lacked congressional commitment without which the president did not have much room to maneuver. Wit, Poneman, and Gallucci, Going Critical, pp. 266–7.

101 Kim, The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Crisis, p. 32; Konstantin Asmolov, ‘US-DPRK: How the US “observed” the 1994 “Agreed Framework”’, Global Research, available at: {https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-dprk-how-the-us-observed-the-1994-agreed-framework/5619927} accessed 28 November 2017.

102 Kelsey Davenport, ‘Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy’, Arms Control Association, available at: {https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron#2008} accessed 14 August 2018.

103 Martin, Curtis H., ‘Lessons of the Agreed Framework for using engagement as a nonproliferation tool’, The Nonproliferation Review, 6:4 (1999), p. 44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Korea Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO)’, Nuclear Threat Initiative, available at: {http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/korean-peninsula-energy-development-organization-kedo/} accessed 12 April 2017.

104 ‘H.Amdt.324 to H.R.2415’, Library of Congress, available at: {https://www.congress.gov/amendment/106th-congress/house-amendment/324} accessed 9 January 2018; Charles Kartman, Robert Carlin, and Joel Wit, ‘A History of KEDO 1994–2006’, Center for International Security and Cooperation (June 2012), p. 12, available at: {https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/A_History_of_KEDO-1.pdf} accessed 9 January 2018; Jeffrey Lewis, ‘Revisiting the Agreed Framework’, 38 North, available at: {http://www.38north.org/2015/05/jlewis051415/} accessed 9 January 2018; Martin, ‘Lessons of the Agreed Framework’, p. 44.

105 ‘Korea Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO)’, Nuclear Threat Initiative; Pollack, No Exit, pp. 136–7.

106 Pritchard, Charles L., Failed Diplomacy: The Tragic Story of How North Korea Got the Bomb (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2007), pp. 2–3Google Scholar; Snyder, Scott, ‘U.S.-North Korean negotiating behavior and the Six-Party Talks’, in Joo, Seung-ho and Kwak, Tae-Hwan (eds), North Korea's Second Nuclear Crisis and Northeast Asian Security (Hampshire: Ashgate, 2007), p. 152Google Scholar; Pollack, No Exit, p. 131.

107 Pritchard, Failed Diplomacy, p. 4; Hur, The Six-Party Talks on North Korea, pp. 30–1.

108 Pritchard, Failed Diplomacy, p. 137; Snyder, ‘U.S.-North Korean negotiating behavior and the Six-Party Talks’, pp. 152–3; Pollack, No Exit, pp. 131–2; Hur, The Six-Party Talks on North Korea, p. 35.

109 Moon, Chung-in and Bae, Jong-Yun, ‘The Bush Doctrine and the North Korean nuclear crisis’, in Gurtov, Melvin and Van Ness, Peter (eds), Confronting the Bush Doctrine: Critical Views from the Asia-Pacific (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 40Google Scholar; Edward A. Olsen, ‘The Bush administration and North Korea's nuclear policy’, in Joo and Kwak (eds), North Korea's Second Nuclear Crisis and Northeast Asian Security, pp. 45–64; Jackson, Rival Reputations, pp. 160-1; Cha, Victor, The Impossible State: North Korea, Past and Present (London: Bodley Head, 2012), p. 255Google Scholar.

110 Park, John S., ‘Inside multilateralism: the Six-Party Talks’, Washington Quarterly, 28:4 (2005), pp. 76, 79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hur, The Six-Party Talks on North Korea, p. 39.

111 Moreover, with North Korea having broken its side of the bargain also provided the early basis for US insistence on CVID. Cotton, James, ‘North Korea and the Six-Party process: Is a multilateral resolution of the Nuclear Issue Still Possible?’ Asian Security, 3:1 (2007), p. 38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

112 Former ambassador to ROK, Donald Gregg, recalls in his 2002 meeting with DPRK General Ri Chan-bok stating his concerns of potential US attacks on North Korea. Hur, The Six-Party Talks on North Korea, p. 107–08.

113 Habib, Benjamin, ‘North Korea's nuclear weapons programme and the maintenance of the Songun system’, Pacific Review, 24:1 (2011), pp. 56–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Woo, ‘Pyongyang and the world’, pp. 192–3.

114 Lee, Jae-Bong, ‘US-deployment of nuclear weapons in 1950s South Korea & North Korea's nuclear development: Toward denuclearization of the Korean peninsula’, Asia-Pacific Journal – Japan Focus, 7:3 (2009), p. 14Google Scholar; Pollack, No Exit, p. 144; Cha, Victor, ‘North Korea's weapons of mass destruction: Badges, shields, or swords?’, Political Science Quarterly, 117:2 (2002), pp. 29–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 Pritchard, Failed Diplomacy, p. 2.

116 Hur, The Six-Party Talks on North Korea, p. 110.

117 Dae-Kyu Yoon, ‘Issues and Expectations for the 2nd Round of Six-Party Talks’, The Institute for Far Eastern Studies, available at: {http://ifes.kyungnam.ac.kr/kor/PUB/PUB_0202V.aspx?code=FRM1010_000103} accessed 24 February 2014, emphasis added.

118 The Six-Party Talks took place over six rounds: preliminary trilateral (US-China-DPRK) talks (23–5 April 2003); round 1 (27–9 August 2003); round 2 (25–8 February 2004); round 3 (23–6 June 2004); round 4 (26 July–7 August, 13–19 September 2005); and round 5 (session 1: 9–11 November 2005, session 2: 18–22 December 2006, and session 3: 8–13 February 2007). Pritchard, Failed Diplomacy, pp. 85–6.

119 Park, ‘Inside multilateralism’, p. 76.

120 Quote in Pritchard, Failed Diplomacy, p. 102. See also Hur, The Six-Party Talks on North Korea, p. 86.

121 Martin, Curtis, ‘G. W. Bush and North Korea: a levels of analysis view’, Pacific Focus, 22:1 (2007), pp. 112–14Google Scholar.

122 Snyder, ‘U.S.-North Korean negotiating behavior and the Six-Party Talks’, p. 155.

123 Cheney reportedly said: ‘I have been charged by the president with making sure that none of the tyrannies in the world are negotiated with. We don't negotiate with evil; we defeat it.’ Pritchard, Failed Diplomacy, pp. 103–05.

124 Martin, ‘G. W. Bush and North Korea’, p. 124. Prior to the start of negotiations in August 2003, State Secretary, Colin Powell, was the only one who signalled intentions to provide some form of security assurances that would be satisfactory to Pyongyang. Kurata, Hideya, ‘A conceptual analysis of the Six-Party Talks: Building peace through security assurances’, Asian Security, 3:1 (2007), p. 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125 Moon and Bae, ‘The Bush doctrine and the North Korean nuclear crisis’, p. 39.

126 Cotton, ‘North Korea and the Six-Party process’ p. 28.

127 Quote from Volpe, Tristan, ‘The unraveling of North Korea's proliferation blackmail strategy’, in Kim, Sung Chull and Cohen, Michael D. (eds), North Korea and Nuclear Weapons: Entering the New Era of Deterrence (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2017), p. 82Google Scholar; Kurata, ‘A conceptual analysis of the Six-Party Talks’, p. 19.

128 Cotton, ‘North Korea and the Six-Party process’, p. 29; Pritchard, Failed Diplomacy, p. 106; Snyder, ‘U.S.-North Korean negotiating behavior and the Six-Party Talks’, pp. 161–2; Moon and Bae, ‘The Bush doctrine and the North Korean nuclear crisis’, p. 40.

129 Hur, The Six-Party Talks on North Korea, p. 98.

130 Kurata, ‘A conceptual analysis of the Six-Party Talks’, p. 23.

131 Pollack, No Exit, p. 148.

132 Snyder, ‘U.S.-North Korean negotiating behavior and the Six-Party Talks’, p. 156; Pritchard, Failed Diplomacy, p. 109; Pollack, No Exit, pp. 146–7.

133 Pritchard, Failed Diplomacy, p. 119; Cotton, ‘North Korea and the Six-Party process’, pp. 29–30.

134 Department of State, ‘Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of the Six-Party Talks’, available at: {https://www.state.gov/p/eap/regional/c15455.htm} accessed 2 July 2018.

135 Kwak, Tae-Hwan, ‘Resolving the North Korean nuclear issue through the Six-Party process: a creative formula’, The Journal of East Asian Affairs, 20:1 (2006), pp. 7–10Google Scholar.

136 Armstrong, Charles K., ‘South Korea and the Six-Party Talks: the least bad option?’, Joint US-Korea Academic Studies, 21 (2011), p. 169Google Scholar; Cotton, ‘North Korea and the Six-Party process’, pp. 31–2; Pritchard, Failed Diplomacy, pp. 121–3.

137 The spokesman further noted that ‘once US nuclear threats are removed and the US nuclear umbrella for South Korea disappears, we will not need nuclear weapons, … [but] as long as the United States hostile policy toward the DPRK and nuclear threats are not fundamentally eliminated, we will never give up our nuclear weapons first, not even in a hundred years’. Pollack, No Exit, p. 159, emphasis in original. See also Cotton, ‘North Korea and the Six-Party process’, p. 34.

138 Amanda Lilly, ‘Why the Six-Nation Talks?’, Washington Post, available at: {http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061802560.html} accessed 27 June 2018.

139 Nikitin, Mary Beth D., Chanlett-Avery, Emma, and Manyin, Mark E., Nuclear Negotiations with North Korea: In Brief, R45033 (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2017), p. 8Google Scholar.

140 Leon V. Sigal, ‘Looking for leverage in all the wrong places’, 38 North, available at: {https://www.38north.org/2010/05/looking-for-leverage-in-all-the-wrong-places/} accessed 13 April 2019; Tae-Hwan Kwak and Seung-Ho Joo, ‘The U.S. financial sanctions against North Korea’, Pacific Focus, 22:1 (2007), pp. 95–6.

141 Mike Chinoy, ‘Bush on North Korea: Wrong again’, 38 North, available at: {https://www.38north.org/2010/11/bush-on-north-korea-wrong-again/} accessed 26 July 2018; Siegfried S. Hecker, Robert L. Carlin, and E. A. Serbin, ‘A Technical and Political History of North Korea's Nuclear Program Over the Past 26 Years’, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, p. 7, available at: {https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/narrativescombinedfinv2.pdf} accessed 8 July 2018.

142 Kwak and Joo, ‘The U.S. financial sanctions against North Korea’, pp. 99–102.

143 Ibid., p. 103.

144 Martin, ‘G. W. Bush and North Korea’, p. 115.

145 Kim, The North Korean Nuclear Weapons Crisis, p. 113; Department of State, ‘Joint Statement of the Fourth Round of the Six-Party Talks’, available at: {https://www.state.gov/p/eap/regional/c15455.htm} accessed 2 July 2018.

146 ‘Status of the Six-Party Talks for the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula’, Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundredth Tenth Congress, Second Session, pp. 6–7, available at: {http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html} accessed 26 July 2018.

147 Moon Chung-in, ‘The Six Party Talks and Implications for a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone’, NAPSNet Special Reports, available at: {https://nautilus.org/napsnet/napsnet-special-reports/the-six-party-talks-and-implications-for-a-northeast-asia-nuclear-weapons-free-zone/} accessed 26 July 2018.

148 Christopher R. Hill, ‘North Korean Six-Party Talks and Implementation Activities’, US Department of State, available at: {https://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/107590.htm} accessed 14 August 2018. Kelsey Davenport, ‘Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy’, Arms Control Association, available at: {https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron#2008} accessed 14 August 2018.

149 Volpe, ‘The unraveling of North Korea's proliferation blackmail strategy’, p. 83.

150 Hecker, Carlin, and Serbin, ‘A Technical and Political History of North Korea's Nuclear Program Over the Past 26 Years’, pp. 7–8, 15.

151 Leon V. Sigal, ‘Lessons from the unhappy history of verification in North Korea’, 38 North, available at: {https://www.38north.org/2018/07/lsigal070918/} accessed 13 April 2019.

152 Lilly, ‘Why the Six-Nation Talks?’

153 ‘Status of the Six-Party Talks for the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula’, Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, One Hundredth Tenth Congress, Second Session (6 February 2008), available at: {https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/020608_Transcript_Status%20of%20the%20SixParty%20Talks%20for%20Denuclearization%20of%20the%20Korean%20Peninsula.pdf} accessed 2 July 2018; Cha, The Impossible State, pp. 260–3.

154 Catherine Killough, ‘Trump should heed the lessons of past U.S.-North Korea talks’, The National Interest, available at: {https://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-should-heed-lessons-past-us-north-korea-talks-45612} accessed 9 April 2019.

155 Park, ‘Inside multilateralism’, pp. 78–9; Cha, The Impossible State, p. 263; Moon, Chung-in, ‘The Six Party Talks and implications for peninsular and regional peace and security’, in Frank, Rudiger and Swenson-Wright, John (eds), Korea and East Asia: The Stony Road to Collective Security (Leiden: Brill, 2012), p. 231Google Scholar.

156 Evans J. R. Revere, ‘Re-Engaging North Korea After Kim Jong-il's Death: Last, Best Hope or Dialogue to Nowhere?’, Brookings Policy Paper 29 (January 2012), p. 11.

157 Haejin Choi and Hyonhee Shin, ‘North Korea says denuclearization pledge not result of U.S.-led sanctions’, Reuters, available at: {https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-southkorea/north-korea-says-denuclearization-pledge-not-result-of-u-s-led-sanctions-idUSKBN1I703M} accessed 8 July 2018.

158 Adam Mount and Ankit Panda, ‘North Korea is not denuclearizing’, The Atlantic, available at: {https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/north-korea-kim-jong-un-trump-nuclear-summit-weapons-missiles/558620/} accessed 8 July 2018; Leon V. Sigal, ‘Picking up the pieces from Hanoi’, 38 North, available at: {https://www.38north.org/2019/03/lsigal030519/} accessed 13 April 2019.

159 Klingner, Bruce, ‘North Korea heading for the abyss’, The Washington Quarterly, 37:3 (2014), pp. 173–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

160 Jim Geraghty, ‘What it's like to talk with North Korea’, National Review, available at: {https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/north-korea-south-korea-peace-talks/} accessed 28 June 2018. Similarly, Catherine Killough points out that Pyongyang ‘has also demonstrated a talent for hedging against the United States, as evidenced by its development of a uranium enrichment program’. Killough, ‘Trump should heed the lessons of past U.S.-North Korea Talks’.

161 Thus far, this expectation appears reasonable as Kim remains open to the idea of a third summit, and as he suggests, ‘If I didn't have the will [to denuclearise], I wouldn't be here right now.’ ‘Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un makes policy speech at first session of 14th SPA’, The Diplomat, available at: {https://manage.thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/thediplomat-supreme-leader-kim-jong-un-makes-policy-speech-at-first-session-of-14th-spa.pdf} accessed 13 April 2019; Kim, ‘The Hanoi summit’.

162 Knopf, Jeffrey, ‘Varieties of assurance’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 35:3 (2012), p. 387CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

163 Levite, ‘Never say never again’, p. 67.

164 Hersman and Peters, ‘Nuclear U-turns’, p. 548.

165 John Hudson, ‘Compared with Trump, previous presidents extracted more concessions from N. Korea, experts say’, Washington Post, available at: {https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/compared-with-trump-previous-presidents-extracted-more-concessions-from-n-korea-experts-say/2018/06/12/84ea6aeb-2ce9-4d73-abf1-0614c5c56e68_story.html?utm_term=.129bd96247f7} accessed 15 June 2018.