As one might expect, the commentary concerning the Singapore Summit follows ideological lines. Let’s start with Trump apologist Conrad Black on National Review:
Senator Ed Markey (D., Mass.) — who announced as the president emplaned for Singapore that the U.S. military and civilians in South Korea would all be hostages in the face of conflict, that the U.S. would suffer greater casualties than in the Korean War, and that “there is no military option” — laid naked the bankruptcy and ignorance of the bipartisan bad policy that brought matters to this extremity. If there wasn’t a military option this meeting would not have happened. The hypocrisy of the Democrats, elected and in the media, is picturesque. First it was “two madmen,” Trump’s threats were a menace to the world, the on-and-off meeting would give Kim “a giggle-fit” (House Democratic leader Pelosi), Trump would give too much away and be foxed by the 34-year old demented hermit. How dare Trump legitimize this Hitlerian murderer? How could he make placatory noises to Kim or speak cordially about him? Trump gave up nothing, denuclearization has been pledged, and though not described in writing, it was verbally clear what it means, and maximum force, economic and military, remains in place. And Kim cannot be uninterested in the possibilities for the end of Pyongyang’s isolationism and impoverishment.
Markey’s stance is of a piece with the fatuities about trade wars as Trump dismantles the country’s $865 billion trade deficit. The American public will support a rebuff to the international trade pickpockets, though Trump should not have singled out Canada, which is a fair-trade country. It is assumed by Trump’s critics implicitly that the United States has the moral duty to be scammed out of $865 billion a year in foreign trade because it stabilizes world relations and finances and helps developing countries. But it doesn’t. It just enriches the ungrateful world and casts the U.S. in the role Richard Nixon warned against: that of “a pitiful, helpless giant.” The political and psychological battle lines are going up across the full public-policy range. Trump is not xenophobic, and he supports immigration, including Mexican immigration, but the Democrats have been pushed to the edge of the political cliff opposing an enforceable border, supporting practically unlimited entry to undocumented foreigners and their right to vote once in the U.S., capped by the denial of the right of census-takers required by the Constitution to compute the size of state delegations in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College, even to ask about citizenship, and in support of sanctuary cities in which the law of the country is willfully violated and defied by local officials. The political and media Democrats are almost all aboard on open borders and sanctuary cities, and electorally, that ship will sink.
We know Black is an apologist because he tries to defend all of Trump’s behaviors and cast aspersions upon Trump’s opponents, rather than present an analysis of the event. I didn’t bother to read the whole thing.
Kevin Drum, off on the other end of the spectrum:
At this point, I suppose there’s little reason to keep writing about the Singapore summit. It obviously accomplished nothing, no matter how much Donald Trump tweets otherwise, and there’s nothing left to do except see if Pompeo and his team make any concrete progress in upcoming negotiations. If they do, then all kudos to them. But until then, stop insulting our intelligence.
David French, on National Review, steps out of line:
In other words, there’s a presidential sucker born every four years. In spite of the deep differences from president to president, incentives are still incentives, national interests are still national interests, and weakness is still weakness. The laws of power politics and international diplomacy still apply.
Consider the Singapore summit. Why, pray tell, would North Korea ever give up nuclear weapons if the race to build the weapons — and the race to create a credible missile program — landed the world’s pariah state not just in the center of the world stage but also in the position to demand (and receive!) important concessions from the most powerful nation in the history of the world?
The image of Trump and Kim together in front of the flags of their countries sent a message to the North Korean people that they had arrived. It was a vindication of juche, the national ideology of self-reliance and cultural and racial superiority. When Kim extracted from Trump a promise to end “war games” with the South, it was a vindication of North Korean strength. Unless reversed, the decision also undermines American and South Korean military readiness. …
Unless more rational heads can prevail, Trump’s hubris will continue to elevate Kim and harm our national interests.
French may be excommunicated for that column.
James Hohmann on WaPo’s PowerPost:
Trump’s certitude about Kim’s intentions was reminiscent of when George W. Bush proclaimed early in his presidency that he peered into Vladimir Putin’s eyes, saw his soul and concluded that the Russian leader was trustworthy.
“This is complete denuclearization,” Trump insisted. “I really believe that it’s going to go quickly. I really believe it’s going to go fast. … We will do it as fast as it can mechanically and physically be done.”
When a reporter at the news conference asked how he’ll ensure Kim follows through, Trump was dismissive: “Can you ensure anything? Can I ensure you are going to be able to sit down properly when you sit down?”
That’s a far cry from Ronald Reagan’s mantra during arms control talks with the Soviets: “Trust but verify.”
Jennifer Rubin of Right Turn:
The president of the United States was fleeced, and worse, has no doubt impressed upon Kim that this country can be played for fools and strung along. Trump gave Kim newfound legitimacy and Kim’s nuclear weapons program can go on and on.
She’s a never-Trumper conservative.
An appalled Steve Berman on The Resurgent:
Instead, Trump is following his instincts. He likes to be flattered, so he flatters others. But decent people don’t flatter monsters. Or at least they shouldn’t. In this case, Trump’s instincts are leading him somewhere he should not go.
Inviting Kim to the White House is probably a mistake. If Trump follows through with it, and Kim actually shows up, honoring this man would be a terrible misstep for America. In fact, Kim deserves to be arrested the moment he sets foot on American soil. If Trump really meant that Otto Warmbier’s death was not in vain, he would not treat Kim like a dignitary in the seat of American government.
Perhaps I’ll stop here and get off the beaten track. The analyses, to a large extent (David French appears to be a noted exception), follow the ideological inclinations of the writers, or, to use my old analogy, everyone persistently stares through their favorite prism.
So what is an independent voter supposed to make of the situation? Precious few of us have any expertise on North Korean. I’ve read a book or two, but I don’t expect that means much.
So, at least for me, we have to seek out the non-partisan experts. Remember the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), so universally condemned by the GOP? Even though the Democrats had a good intra-party debate on it before coming out for it, mostly, I had to wonder if they were just singing in the Obama chorus. The answer to the question of whether it was a good deal or not?
Finding those non-partisan analyses. In the Iran nuclear deal, those analyses seemed to be nearly universal in their conclusion that it was a good deal. Thus, amateur I chose to be for the deal. As further proof, the hard right political factions of Iran screamed their heads off. In this respect, President Trump’s recent decision to abrogate the JCPOA without reason may be seen as giving help and comfort to some of our most determined adversaries.
My Arts Editor often accuses me of trying to see the best in people, and it’s true – eternal cynicism is really a harsh way to spend your life. But I find that a measure of wariness is in order when it comes to proven ideologues of any stripe. Most of the folks I quoted above fall into the ideologue camps with varying degrees of devotedness, or at least appear to (Berman is new to me, but The Resurgent is a known hangout for right wing never-Trumpers).
For my nickel, 38 North is a good source of analyses. So far, I have not been able to detect an endemic Western political ideology; they appear to be what they claim, a bunch of old North Korean diplomatic and intelligence hands, giving out their opinions based on observation and experience. So what are they publishing? Robert Gallucci is nonplussed:
The only possible reaction to the summit is disappointment. We all knew that both leaders wanted a good show and a lot of positive talk, and there was no reason to think that they would fail to deliver. They delivered. The only real question was whether the American president would get more—specifically some clarity from the North Korean chairman on what he meant by denuclearization and when it might happen. We got none of that.
We should feel good about the apparent commitment of both leaders to the process of reducing tensions and movement to new stable, peaceful relations. As Churchill said, “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.” But it was these same two leaders whose words in 2017 brought us to the verge of war, perhaps nuclear war, who we now would celebrate for possibly bringing us peace. Cynicism, or at least skepticism, would not be entirely inappropriate right now.
But he remains cautiously – and sensibly – hopeful of small steps. William McKinney, on the other hand, sees some positivity in canceling the joint exercises with the South Koreans:
Given how much the North Koreans detest exercises that are intended to demonstrate the US-ROK capacity to “decapitate” the North Korean leadership and overthrow the Kim regime, his surprising commitment is the most strategically significant confidence-building measure (CBM) that could be made, especially since it was offered unilaterally and outside the formal talks with the North Koreans. In effect, the president’s statement also reciprocates the North’s earlier stoppage of missile and nuclear tests—a CBM tit-for-tat.
In some ways, the opinions of the folks I read on the general purpose ideological blogs are like candy – they may taste good, they may reinforce my tawdry and ill-informed opinions, but what are they really worth? How much are they just repeating each other? The folks on 38 North, on the other hand, are more likely to be correct about a difficult to understand, to say nothing of resolving, situation. I’ll continue to keep an eye on 38 North and consider their opinions as far more relevant than the ideologically driven, who have goals little-related to the actual situation.
