Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Israel-Iran
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / North Korea / Explainer from North Korea expert David C. Kang: How to evaluate the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi
North Korea, Diplomacy

February 26, 2019

Explainer from North Korea expert David C. Kang: How to evaluate the Trump-Kim summit in Hanoi

By David Kang

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 26, 2019
Contact: press@defensepriorities.org

WASHINGTON, DC—With President Trump set to meet Kim Jong-un in Hanoi, Vietnam, North Korea expert, David C. Kang, Director of USC’s Korean Studies Institute and Maria Crutcher Professor of International Relations, provided the following explainer.

THE STAKES:

  • The stakes are not as high as many Washington analysts seem to think. The worst case would be both sides return to threats—but we have done that for decades. Rather, the stakes are what could happen if things go well, and here, the upside is quite high.
  • North Korea won’t attack us if we don’t attack them. Deterrence will hold. Threats have not worked for decades and won’t work now. The best way forward is to engage and try to get the North to open up its economy and its country to outside influences, while slowly attempting to pause and even rollback its nuclear and missile programs.
  • No matter what, Hanoi is not the final step. It is one of the first steps toward finding a political relationship between the United States and North Korea that can slowly—hopefully—bring about movement away from nuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.
  • Full denuclearization is probably unrealistic, but even some movement back down the path is a positive step and should be encouraged.

EXPECTATIONS:

  • The idea that there has been no tangible progress is false. Given where we were in December 2017, U.S.-DPRK relations are today far better off. That the North is more willing to discuss a myriad of ways in which they might be willing to open to the outside world is significant and should be seriously pursued.
  • I suspect Kim Jong-un has something symbolic to give to Trump—probably not a lot, but something. Perhaps a pledge to close down Yongbyon, or to allow inspections “at some time.” The real question is: Will the U.S. have something symbolic to give in return?
  • That the majority of policymakers and pundits are skeptical of the Trump process for dealing with North Korea is not surprising. But this is missing the point. For the first time in a generation, there are new leaders in North Korea, South Korea, and the United States who are willing to question, and perhaps change, the status quo.
  • HOW TO EVALUATE THE SUMMIT:

Evaluating the outcomes from the summit should be measured by progress toward peace, not denuclearization.

  • This is a slow process no matter what—nothing can possibly happen quickly, but time is on our side. Creating trust, building a working relationship, and simply bringing North Korean leaders and diplomats into the world is an important step. Nobody should want to return to the decade of total non-activity that preceded these negotiations.
  • The goal in Hanoi is to build momentum for negotiations between the U.S. and DPRK to sustain détente past this year. After that, the United States will be consumed with a presidential election that promises to be intense.
  • North Korea is not a problem to be solved, but managed. There is no combination of carrots and sticks that will make North Korea denuclearize, democratize, and also stop its human rights abuses. North Korea is more than a nuclear issue—it is a country the United States has to live with.

Author

David
Kang

Professor

University of Southern California

More on Asia

ExplainerMilitary analysis, Air power, Basing and force posture, Land power, Naval power

Aligning global military posture with U.S. interests

By Jennifer Kavanagh and Dan Caldwell

July 9, 2025

In the mediaGrand strategy, Asia

‘Restrainers’ propose slashing U.S. troop numbers in South Korea, Okinawa

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh and Dan Caldwell

July 9, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Americas, China, Great power competition

What is Trump’s “new realism” in foreign policy?

By Lyle Goldstein

July 4, 2025

In the mediaChina, Asia, Taiwan

American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea

Featuring Lyle Goldstein

July 4, 2025

op-edNATO, Alliances, Asia

Why America’s East Asian allies skipped the NATO summit

By Lyle Goldstein

July 2, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia

There is no ‘axis of autocracy’

By Daniel DePetris

July 1, 2025

Events on North Korea

See All Events
in-personNorth Korea, Asia, Deterrence, Diplomacy, Nuclear weapons

Past In-Person Event: Ending the North Korea standoff

March 5, 2018
in-personGrand strategy, Iran, North Korea, Nuclear weapons

Past In-Person Event: Managing nuclear proliferation crises

October 30, 2017

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved