If the US drops its hollow obsession, there is no reason not to sit down
In the long and unresolved drama of nuclear diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula, Kim Jong-un has extended a conditional hand toward Washington — not in surrender, but in assertion. Speaking before North Korea's parliament in late September 2025, he expressed warmth toward Donald Trump while drawing a firm line: talks are possible, but only if the United States abandons its demand that North Korea disarm. It is an invitation shaped entirely by the terms of the one extending it, and it arrives at a moment when the world watches to see whether pragmatism or principle will guide the response.
- Kim Jong-un has broken his public silence on Trump's second term by declaring nuclear weapons non-negotiable — permanently enshrined, never to be traded away under any diplomatic framework.
- The offer of dialogue carries a sting: Washington must first abandon what Kim calls its 'hollow obsession' with denuclearization, a precondition that directly contradicts the longstanding policy of both the US and South Korea.
- Speculation is mounting that Trump, who met Kim three times in his first term, may pursue a limited 'small deal' — perhaps a nuclear freeze — rather than push for full disarmament, a path South Korean President Lee has cautiously endorsed as a 'feasible, realistic alternative.'
- A potential Trump-Kim encounter at Panmunjom during the APEC summit looms as a diplomatic wildcard, echoing their historic 2019 meeting at the same border crossing.
- While signaling openness to Trump, Kim simultaneously threatened South Korea with nuclear annihilation and rejected any path toward inter-Korean reconciliation or unification, deepening the existential stakes for millions on the peninsula.
On a Sunday in late September, Kim Jong-un addressed North Korea's parliament and offered Washington a conditional opening. He recalled good memories of Donald Trump and said Pyongyang was prepared to negotiate — but only if the United States first abandoned its insistence on denuclearization as a precondition. "If the US drops its hollow obsession with denuclearization and wants to pursue peaceful coexistence with North Korea based on the recognition of reality, there is no reason for us not to sit down," he said.
What Kim was not offering was any flexibility on the nuclear question itself. North Korea's arsenal, he declared, was irreversible, constitutionally enshrined, and would never become a bargaining chip. The weapons program was simply off the table — full stop.
The statement arrived with deliberate timing. Trump had expressed hope of meeting Kim before year's end, and speculation had grown that such an encounter might occur at Panmunjom during the APEC summit — echoing their spontaneous 2019 crossing of the same border. Analysts suggested Trump might settle for a "small deal," such as a nuclear freeze, rather than full disarmament. South Korean President Lee Jae Myung had quietly signaled he could accept such an interim measure as a "feasible, realistic alternative."
But Kim's message toward Seoul was far less conciliatory. He rejected Lee's denuclearization proposal as a recycled imitation of past plans, refused any inter-Korean dialogue, and threatened that South Korea and its allies would face nuclear annihilation if the North were ever denied the use of its weapons as a deterrent. He also cited new naval destroyers and undisclosed "secret weapons" as evidence of continued military advancement.
The picture Kim painted was layered and deliberate: a door cracked open for Trump, bolted shut for Seoul, and framed entirely on Pyongyang's terms. Whether Washington would step through — or walk away — remained the defining question.
Kim Jong-un stood before North Korea's parliament on a Sunday in late September and offered the United States a conditional opening. He had good memories of Donald Trump, he said. Pyongyang was willing to talk. But there was a price for that willingness: Washington would have to stop insisting that North Korea give up its nuclear weapons before any negotiation could begin.
The remarks, delivered at a two-day session of the Supreme People's Assembly and reported by North Korea's state news agency the following day, marked Kim's first direct public assessment of Trump since the American president's second term began in January. His sister had suggested in July that personal relations between the two men remained cordial. Now Kim was saying it himself, and he was being explicit about what that cordiality might unlock. "If the US drops its hollow obsession with denuclearization and wants to pursue peaceful coexistence with North Korea based on the recognition of reality, there is no reason for us not to sit down with the US," he said.
What Kim was not offering was flexibility on the nuclear question itself. He made that abundantly clear in the same speech. North Korea would never, never abandon its nuclear arsenal, he declared. The weapons were irreversible, enshrined in the constitution, and they would not become bargaining chips in some future negotiation. "There will never be such negotiations with the enemies as trading something while being obsessed with sanctions relief," he added. The message was unmistakable: the nuclear program was off the table.
The timing of Kim's statement was not accidental. Trump had expressed hope during a summit with South Korean President Lee Jae Myung the previous month that he might meet with Kim before the year ended. Speculation had begun circulating that such a meeting might happen at Panmunjom, the truce village that straddles the border between North and South Korea, possibly during Trump's planned attendance at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. Trump had met Kim three times during his first presidency—twice in formal summits, in Singapore in June 2018 and in Hanoi in February 2019, and once at Panmunjom itself in June 2019. The Hanoi meeting had ended without agreement, derailed by disagreements over sanctions relief and the scope of denuclearization demands. Since then, formal talks had stalled.
Experts watching the situation suggested that Trump might pursue what they called a "small deal"—perhaps a freeze on North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, or some form of limited disarmament—rather than the complete denuclearization that both South Korea and the United States had long demanded. Lee himself had recently signaled openness to such an approach, telling the BBC that his government would accept a nuclear freeze as "an interim emergency measure" and "a feasible, realistic alternative."
But Kim's message to the South was far harsher. He reaffirmed his hostile stance toward Seoul, saying he would neither sit down with South Korea for talks nor pursue unification. He had made similar declarations before—in December 2023, he had formally defined inter-Korean relations as those between "two states hostile to each other." Now he went further, threatening nuclear annihilation if the North could not use its weapons as a war deterrent. "The military organisation and the substructure of the Republic of Korea and its allies of surrounding areas will collapse in an instant," he said. "This means an annihilation."
He also dismissed President Lee's three-stage denuclearization proposal as merely a recycled version of earlier plans from Lee's predecessors. Lee, who had taken office in June and made mending ties with the North a priority, had asked Trump to serve as a peacemaker and help chart a new path for the peninsula. But Kim was not interested in Lee's roadmap.
In the same speech, Kim cited new accomplishments in the defense sector, including the construction of new naval destroyers and what he called "secret weapons" that would bolster military capability, though he offered no details. The message was layered: openness to Trump, but only on Pyongyang's terms; hostility toward the South; and continued military advancement. Whether Trump would take the bait remained to be seen.
Citações Notáveis
If the US drops its hollow obsession with denuclearization and wants to pursue peaceful coexistence with North Korea based on the recognition of reality, there is no reason for us not to sit down with the US.— Kim Jong-un
I affirm that there will never, never be denuclearisation for us. There will never be such negotiations with the enemies as trading something while being obsessed with sanctions relief.— Kim Jong-un
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would Kim suddenly signal openness to talks with Trump if he's not willing to discuss nuclear weapons at all?
Because the condition he's setting—dropping denuclearization demands—is actually a way to reset the conversation. He's saying: stop making this about giving up nukes, and we can talk about something else. It's a negotiating position dressed as an opening.
But what would they actually negotiate about if nuclear weapons are completely off limits?
That's the question everyone's asking. Trump might be interested in a freeze—stopping new weapons development without requiring disarmament. Or confidence-building measures. The point is, Kim is saying the door exists if the precondition changes.
Why mention Trump specifically and say he has a good memory of him?
Because Trump is the only American president Kim has actually met with, and those meetings happened without preconditions. Kim's reminding Trump of that history. He's also signaling to his own people that he's not hostile to dialogue—just to demands he sees as humiliating.
And the threats toward South Korea—why include those in the same speech?
To make clear that his openness to the US doesn't extend to Seoul. He's drawing a sharp line: America might be negotiable; the South is an enemy. It's also a reminder that he has leverage—the threat itself is part of the message.
Do you think Trump will actually meet him at Panmunjom?
That's the speculation, but Kim's conditions suggest he's testing whether Trump will come to him on his terms. The real question is whether Trump sees value in a meeting that doesn't move toward denuclearization.