If the architects of the Singapore summit expected much praise for what the “historic” meeting achieved, they couldn’t have been more mistaken.
The outcome of the June 12 summit featuring US President Donald Trump and North Korean Chairman Kim Jong-un has evoked scepticism in the West with many already foretelling its failure. The sub-text of the criticism betrays an innate belief in Western politico-cultural superiority and a condescension towards nations that do not conform and toe the US line.
The dominant criticism is that Trump conceded much more than what he received from North Korea. His announcement at the summit that the US was suspending routinely-held military exercises off the Korean peninsula with allies Japan and South Korea has been met with disbelief. This was reciprocal to Chairman Kim’s promise to work towards the complete denuclearisation of the peninsula.
Such a concession was unwarranted, say several Western commentators as, according to them, Kim had only promised to work towards denuclearisation and not announced his intention to do so forthwith. Columnist Jonathan Freedland writing in
To say the least, the reactions range from splitting hair (on why the word verifiable was not prefixed to denuclearisation in the joint communiqué) to the ludicrous (the two meeting on equal terms with an equal number of flags behind them and shaking hands). Freedland said Trump by meeting Kim legitimised the North Korean ruler as someone on par with the US President. The New York Times said Kim “outfoxed” Trump, he was “hoodwinked”. If one deconstructs the range of criticism it is obvious that Trump had crossed an unwritten Lakshman rekha on how far a democratically elected US President could go in dealing with, what the West considers, a tin pot dictator.
Hubris and arrogance
The responses smack of hubris at best and arrogance arising out of the perception that the US is the global numero uno which should not be stooping to negotiate, especially with supposedly renegade nations like North Korea.
Trump’s meet with Kim is just the second attempt by a US administration at peace-making since the so-called war on terror after the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington. The first, with Iran on the nuclear issue, is already in doldrums with Trump backing out of it.
In the case of North Korea, critics of the summit refer to the outcome as predictable, one that Pyongyang has made in the past. For instance, the 1994 Agreed Framework deal under which North Korea promised to give up plutonium enrichment in exchange for aid.
The deal collapsed in 2002 when the Bush administration turned the screws on Pyongyang. Even so, these commitments were made at official-level talks, but the Singapore summit is the first time that the presidents of the two countries have met. This has not been given the importance it deserves.
Historically, such summits have had far-reaching impact like erstwhile US President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972.
The problem for a section of Western analysts seems to be Trump himself. In the US, irrespective of who the president is, the state or the establishment is the unseen force that dictates policy particularly relating to foreign affairs. For instance, the blanket US support to Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians cannot be easily altered by even an elected president.
Similarly, in the case of North Korea, the long-standing policy of the United States establishment has been that it is a hostile country, part of the “axis of evil”, that needs to be arm-twisted into falling in line with Washington. And, the way to do is through force, or pressure — either using institutions like the United Nations or by direct threats. Since 2006, North Korea has endured US-engineered sanctions that have all but driven the country to penury and miserable living conditions for its population.
With Pyongyang technically at war with the US ally South Korea for close to seven decades, the US establishment would ideally want a closure to this conflict in its favour. Trump instead of playing along with the establishment in Washington DC decided to try his own method to resolve the conflict. No wonder the summit has attracted so much criticism for what it has supposedly not achieved.
Trump has consistently broken ranks with the US establishment, which includes powerful political and economic groups backed by Wall Street, the various corporates and the Congress. His conservative politics comprising, among other things, support for anti-abortion groups, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim posturing and willy-nilly polarising the black-white-Hispanic communities have all but turned him into a feared individual if not a figure of ridicule.
The US President, with no previous experience either as a file-pushing official, administrator or even as an elected representative, has shown complete disregard for the nuances surrounding the conduct of a person in the world’s most powerful job.
Over the top criticism
It is in this context that scepticism over his Singapore summit has gone over the top. Some have questioned how he could shake hands with a dictator who has blood on his hands, with someone who is responsible for the perceived violation of human rights of a large section of his own people. But the same sceptics do not have a problem with Trump shaking hands with Saudi Arabia’s crown prince Mohamed bin Salman, another dictator akin to Kim.
And, for those finding fault with Trump for hobnobbing with a dictator, he is not the first to do so. The US has a long history and tradition of backing dictators like Iraqi president Saddam Hussein (before he fell out of favour) and engineering coups against democratically elected presidents like Salvador Allende of Chile.
If Kim did not announce giving up his country’s nuclear programme with immediate effect he probably had good reason not to do so. Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi paid a heavy price for dismantling his country’s nuclear capabilities in 2003. Eight years later, insurgents deposed him with NATO-US help.
Iran has managed to stay afloat, again possibly due to its active nuclear programme. Obviously, Kim will be cautious and expect the US to make tangible concessions before he moves further to dismantle the country’s nuclear infrastructure. The Singapore summit is definitely a step in this direction — one that would be backed by anyone interested in peace.
The writer was formerly Editor at Aljazeera based in Doha