,
6 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
<THREAD>Three criteria for judging a Hanoi agreement: coverage, specificity, and proportionality. (1/6)
If Hanoi produces an agreement, it won’t be a pathway to denuclearization. In principle, that’s OK! As a concession to reality, I’ve long supported “less for less.” DPRK takes steps to limit its nuclear program; US provides proportionate concessions. (2/6) carnegieendowment.org/2018/06/13/wha…
Given a less-for-less paradigm, here’s how I’ll be judging a Hanoi agreement. (3/6)
Coverage. There are four low-hanging fruit with North Korea: Yongbyon (plutonium and tritium), ground based missile engine testing, missile flight testing, and nuclear testing. The more we get commitments on, the better. (4/6)
Specificity. Are the commitments detailed and verified? Delegating teams to work out the details later obviates the use of the summit as a forcing mechanism and allows DPRK to drag its heels. (5/6)
Proportionality. Are the non-nuclear concessions made the US proportionate to the nuclear commitments undertaken by the DPRK? (6/6)
