ShareThis Page
George Will

Does Kim summit foretell disaster with Putin?

| Wednesday, July 4, 2018, 8:53 p.m.

“There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.”

— Donald Trump, June 13, 2018

“North Korea is upgrading its nuclear research center at a rapid pace, new satellite imagery analysis suggests.”

— The Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2018

WASHINGTON — As the president prepares, if this time he does prepare, for his second summit, note all that went wrong at the first. If he does as badly in his July 16 meeting with Vladimir Putin in Finland as he did with Kim Jong Un in Singapore, the consequences could be catastrophic.

The American Enterprise Institute's Nicholas Eberstadt, writing in National Review, says the one-day meeting was for the U.S. “a World Series of unforced errors.” The result was that North Korea “walked away with a joint communique that read almost as if it had been drafted by the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea] ministry of foreign affairs.”

Kim, says Eberstadt, is “the boss of a state-run crime cartel that a U.N. Commission of Inquiry wants to charge with crimes against humanity.” Au contraire, said America's president, who slathered Kim with praise: Kim, with whom Trump has “a very special bond” is a “talented man” who “loves his country,” which reciprocates with “a great fervor.”

North Korea, Eberstadt says, is committed to what he calls its “racial socialism,” which motivates Kim's non-negotiable “central and sacred mission” — the unconditional reunification of the Korean Peninsula. This presupposes extermination of the South Korean state, which requires the policy Kim announced last New Year's Day — to “mass-produce nuclear warheads and missiles and speed up their deployment.”

“Such a program would not be necessary for regime legitimation, or for international military extortion, or even to ensure the regime's survival: All of those objectives could surely be satisfied with a limited nuclear force. Why then threaten the U.S. homeland?” America is the guarantor of South Korea's security, and if Washington can be made to blink at a time and place of Pyongyang's choosing, the U.S.-South Korea alliance will end, as will the U.S. security presence there. Hence the delusional nature of Trump's belief: One one-day meeting sufficed to cause the North Korean regime to abandon its raison d'etre.

Singapore was, Eberstadt believes, probably the greatest diplomatic coup for North Korea since 1950, and a milestone on “the DPRK's road to establishing itself as a permanent nuclear power.”

The most dangerous moment of the Trump presidency will arrive when he who is constantly gnawed by the fear of not seeming what he is not (“strong”) realizes how weak and childish he seems after Singapore. The danger is of him lashing out in wounded vanity.

Meanwhile, he is strutting toward a meeting with the cold-eyed Russian who is continuing to dismantle Europe's geographically largest nation, Ukraine. He is likely looking ahead to ratcheting up pressure on one of three small nations, Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia, each a member of the NATO alliance that, for the first time in its 69 years, is dealing with a U.S. president who evinces no admiration for what it has accomplished, or any understanding of its revived importance as the hard man in Moscow, who can sniff softness, relishes what Singapore revealed.

George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post. His email address is georgewill@washpost.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me