The Columbus Dispatch

History casts shadow on hope for summit’s success

- Bret Stephens is a New York Times columnist. Email him at newsservic­e@ nytimes.com.

between Trump and Reagan — Republican presidents whose hawkish rhetoric and ignorance of policy details disguised an inner pragmatism and visionary imaginatio­n.

“Trump’s lack of focus on the details of denucleari­zation may be a good thing,” Beinart writes. “Like Reagan, he seems to sense that the nuclear technicali­ties matter less than the political relationsh­ip.”

It’s true that Reagan was able to raise his sights to something few others could see. To wit: The Cold War didn’t need to last forever. Personal chemistry with a Soviet leader could go a long way to changing the relationsh­ip.

Could the same scenario unfold with North Korea? Probably not — for reasons that would have been obvious to most conservati­ves before their current Trump derangemen­t.

First, Trump isn’t Reagan. Reagan generally acted in concert with allies. Trump brazenly acts against them. Reagan’s negotiatio­n method: “Trust but verify.” Trump’s self-declared method: “My touch, my feel.” Reagan refused to give in to Soviet demands that he abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative. Trump surrendere­d immediatel­y to Pyongyang’s long-held insistence that the U.S. suspend military exercises with South Korea while getting nothing in return.

Second, Kim isn’t Gorbachev. Gorbachev was born into a family that suffered acutely the horrors of Stalinism. Kim was born into a family that starved its own people. Gorbachev came to office intent on easing political repression at home and defusing tensions with the West. Kim spent his first six years doing precisely the opposite.

Third, Kim knows what happened to Gorbachev, whose spectacula­r fall served as a lesson to dictators everywhere about the folly of attempting to reform a totalitari­an system. The survival of Kim’s regime depends domestical­ly on state terror and internatio­nally on his nuclear arsenal. He will abandon neither.

Fourth, the timetables are incompatib­le. Trump wants a foreign policy “achievemen­t” by the midterms, and maybe a Nobel Peace Prize sometime before the 2020 election. Kim plans to be ruling North Korea when one of Chelsea Clinton’s kids is president.

Fifth, Trump is a sucker. Kim is not. Say what you will about the North Korean despot, but consolidat­ing power, fielding a credible nuclear arsenal, improving his economy without easing political controls, playing nuclear brinkmansh­ip with Trump and then, within weeks, getting the prestige of a superpower summit are political achievemen­ts of the first order.

As for Trump, the supposed success of the summit after the debacle in Quebec appeals to his innate love of drama. He is where he loves to be: at the center of a stunned world’s attention.

But he is also in the place where he always gets himself, and everyone else in his orbit, into the worst trouble: panting for the object of his desire. That’s been true whether it’s the Plaza Hotel, Stormy Daniels and now the “ultimate deal” with Pyongyang. Oilman T. Boone Pickens had the smartest line on this when on Monday he tweeted: “Negotiatin­g advice 101. When you want to make a deal real bad you will make a really bad deal.”

I would be thrilled to learn that Kim is a farsighted reformer masqueradi­ng as a thug and a swindler. It would also be nice to think Trump is playing geopolitic­al chess at a level plodding pundits can scarcely conceive.

For now, however, it’s hard to see what the Singapore summit has achieved other than to betray America’s allies, our belief in human rights, our history of geopolitic­al sobriety and our reliance on common sense. For what? A photo op with a sinister glutton and his North Korean counterpar­t?

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States