For Trump and Kim, maybe the spectacle is what truly counted
NEW YORK — Put aside the “deliverables” and the “outcomes” and the “takeaways.” Put aside, for argument’s sake, the question of what was actually accomplished, at least in the way that we usually use the word. Put aside your politics, even — if only for a moment.
The summit that brought Donald Trump of Washington and Kim Jong Un of Pyongyang together for gripping, grinning and talking Tuesday is being vigorously debated across the planet for what it did, what it didn’t do and who emerged on top.
Strip away the spectacle and look for the substance, the pundits insist. But what if that’s not the whole point? What if, on a sunny tropical morning in Singapore, the spectacle itself was the most substantial thing of all?
“People thought this could never take place. It is now taking place,” Trump said after the meeting. And in that he is utterly correct. A decade ago, a year ago and certainly six months ago, the notion of these two sitting down together — “Little Rocket Man” and the “deranged U.S. dotard,” as they derisively called each other — seemed unfathomable.
This is not a meditation on whether it was right for Trump to meet with Kim, or whether by doing so he legitimized a despot. That’s up to you to decide. Instead, let’s examine whether, in a modern media age when we do so many things remotely and then move on with lightning speed, an old-fashioned tete-a-tete — no matter how highprofile or tabloidy — is still important of its own accord.
First of all, the notion of personal relationships — of actually looking someone in the eye — is of great importance in East Asia. No matter how heartfelt the letter, no matter how big the envelope, correspondence can easily fall short. Face-toface interaction is far superior to any other form of contact — a version of what George W. Bush, referring years ago to Vladimir Putin, called the ability to “get a sense of his soul.”
People who seem intransigent or even sullen in writing or on the phone can bloom with generosity if you sit down together with a cup of tea or a glass of soju, Korea’s clear and potent liquor. So what might be considered a concession by some is, in much of East Asia, simply table stakes.
But what actually HAPPENED at the summit beyond the spectacle, you ask? What is really going to come out of this other than words? Isn’t the act of meeting with Kim nothing more than a miscue that legitimizes his regime?
What happened was that they talked and shook hands and breathed the same air and walked away, by all appearances, in reasonably good moods. What happened was that 70 years of conflict were supplanted for a historical micromoment with a few hours of collegiality, at least
on the surface. What happened was that South Korean media noticed that Trump wasn’t domineering in his approach to Kim as he has been with some European leaders. What happened was that Kim appeared to hold his own in the spotlight — and that some people could thus conclude that the “hermit kingdom,” a horribly insulting moniker, might not apply quite as much anymore. That has potential implications for North Korea and for everybody else.
In the end, the very questions — What actually happened? How did it end? Who was the winner and who was the loser? — are very American things to ask.