The Trump-Kim summit should be hailed as a success
And Trump deserves all the credit
The ink is barely dry on the joint statement signed by President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during Tuesday's summit in Singapore, and yet people are already dumping on it. This is no "deal," the critics say. It's just a vague press release rehashing talking points.
But on the whole, the meeting is an auspicious start.
A follow-up press conference announced some concrete steps: The U.S. would halt military exercises in South Korea, Kim apparently agreed not only to the principle of denuclearization, but to some sort of inspection regime, and Trump announced a follow-up meeting between Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and a North Korean counterpart. Still, there's no mention of a peace treaty — North Korea and the U.S. are still technically at war — or a deadline, or many other specifics.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
But there was never any realistic expectation that a single meeting between two men could produce a comprehensive deal. For starters, a comprehensive deal would have to include China, Russia, and South Korea. And, of course, there will be details to be ironed out. President Ronald Reagan's historic Reykjavik summit with Mikhail Gorbachev — the obvious template for what Trump is trying to do with Kim — happened in 1986, and the resulting Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty only happened in 1987.
The point of such summits is not to come out with a full treaty neatly packaged and tied with a bow. It is to build rapport between leaders — which matters enormously — and get a sense of each side's red lines, which will form the outlines of a future deal.
Right now, there is so much we don't know. Trump will say anything. Kim is also a complete mystery. Perhaps, being from a different generation and having been exposed to the outside world before joining the family business, Kim has a genuine desire to open up his country, if only because it would make him much richer and enable him to travel a lot more. Or perhaps he is just dangling the possibility of a comprehensive deal in front of an all-too-gullible U.S. president to get short-term relief on aid and trade, with no intention of actually denuclearizing, a game that his father was quite adept at. Your guess is as good as mine. Besides, every single international summit ends with the parties pretending it's been a big success, regardless of the actual contents.
With all those caveats duly noted, it certainly seems like the summit's goals have been accomplished. Trump and Kim do seem to have built real rapport, and the peace process with North Korea seems more alive now than at any point since the 1990s. If Kim's desire to reach a settlement is genuine, and if Trump manages not to screw it up, a good deal could be in sight. I agree those are very big ifs, but every international negotiation of consequence includes very large ifs, and that was true before Trump. In other words, there's reason to be cautiously optimistic. Given what could be realistically accomplished in one day, it's hard not to think that if anybody other than Trump were president, the summit would immediately have been hailed a preliminary success.
And really, credit needs to be given where it's due. It does seem like it was Trump's contempt for conventional thinking, and his dealmaking instincts, that got us here. The official U.S. policy was to refuse these kinds of meetings unless there were major concessions from the North Koreans, as these would grant North Korea "legitimacy." That policy seems to have simply alienated North Korea's leadership. Thinking like a real estate developer, Trump understood that giving Kim a photo-op costs him nothing. Besides, such "legitimacy" matters little for a regime that, domestically, controls all of its media and can therefore manufacture it at will, and internationally has pretty clearly accepted its rogue status. Simple-mindedness can be destructive, but it can also mean you see the forest for the trees. Trump blithely cut to the heart of the issue at hand: Does Kim want normalization badly enough that he's willing to give up his nukes?
It looks like Trump is well on his way to finding out the answer to that question. And whatever the outcome, we should all be grateful for it.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry is a writer and fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His writing has appeared at Forbes, The Atlantic, First Things, Commentary Magazine, The Daily Beast, The Federalist, Quartz, and other places. He lives in Paris with his beloved wife and daughter.
-
Will California's EV mandate survive Trump, SCOTUS challenge?
Today's Big Question The Golden State's climate goal faces big obstacles
By Joel Mathis, The Week US Published
-
'Underneath the noise, however, there’s an existential crisis'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Justin Klawans, The Week US Published
-
2024: the year of distrust in science
In the Spotlight Science and politics do not seem to mix
By Devika Rao, The Week US Published
-
Why Assad fell so fast
The Explainer The newly liberated Syria is in an incredibly precarious position, but it's too soon to succumb to defeatist gloom
By The Week UK Published
-
Romania's election rerun
The Explainer Shock result of presidential election has been annulled following allegations of Russian interference
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published
-
Russia's shadow war in Europe
Talking Point Steering clear of open conflict, Moscow is slowly ratcheting up the pressure on Nato rivals to see what it can get away with.
By The Week UK Published
-
Cutting cables: the war being waged under the sea
In the Spotlight Two undersea cables were cut in the Baltic sea, sparking concern for the global network
By The Week UK Published
-
The nuclear threat: is Vladimir Putin bluffing?
Talking Point Kremlin's newest ballistic missile has some worried for Nato nations
By The Week UK Published
-
Russia vows retaliation for Ukrainian missile strikes
Speed Read Ukraine's forces have been using U.S.-supplied, long-range ATCMS missiles to hit Russia
By Arion McNicoll, The Week UK Published
-
Has the Taliban banned women from speaking?
Today's Big Question 'Rambling' message about 'bizarre' restriction joins series of recent decrees that amount to silencing of Afghanistan's women
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Cuba's energy crisis
The Explainer Already beset by a host of issues, the island nation is struggling with nationwide blackouts
By Rebekah Evans, The Week UK Published