 |
| From left, Hwang Jae-ho, professor and director of the Global Security Cooperation Center, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies; Asia Times correspondent and Korea Times columnist Andrew Salmon; North Korean refugee advocate Casey Lartigue; Oh Young-jin, digital managing editor of The Korea Times and Michael Breen, the Times columnist and Korea expert before the Roundtable discussion about the June 12 Singapore summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and the North's Kim Jong-un in the paper's conference room on Tuesday. Korea Times photo by Shim Hyun-chul |
By Michael Breen
We live, it must be said, in an impatient age. And, in our impatient world, South Koreans are among the worst offenders, famous for their bballi-bballi approach to everything from wallpapering the lounge to becoming experts in shipbuilding and smartphones.
But when it comes to North Korea, southerners know the necessity of patience. Yes, they may get giddy when the North gets cuddly. But they are not a stupid people. They have had 70 years of North Korea, during which time, it has tried invasion, guerrilla warfare, terrorism, subversion and peace talks to undermine their country. Each change of weather has been met with resilience and patience. It is something the world should take note of.
I say this because of the remarkably impatient reaction from security experts and professional commentators to the summit earlier this month between the American president, Donald J. Trump, and North Korea's Kim Jong-un.
Consider: these two leaders, whose countries have also been enemies for 70 years, emerge from a brief meeting to declare the start of a new relationship. They say their teams will work out the details of nuclearization disarmament and a peace structure, which are the crucial conditions for eventual ties, and that they will hold more summits as those talks progress. This is historic.
And yet, a majority of experts have criticized the American president. Why? Failure to secure a more detailed agreement. Talk about impatience.
This criticism is widespread, despite the fact that everyone accepts that, in contrast to many summit meetings where the top leaders sign off on agreements reached between their respective teams, this one was intended to kickstart a process.
![[ROUNDTABLE] Time to get real about 'China Passing'](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/hwang_150(2)(0)-590(0).jpg/dims/resize/112/optimize)
![[ROUNDTABLE] Trump: Doltish buffoon or master diplomat?](https://img.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/thumbnailV2/salmon150-590.jpg/dims/resize/112/optimize)
So why was the analysis not about a good start?
I believe there are two parts to the answer and they are not easily separated. One is the good faith expert viewpoint and the other is the media environment in which it is expressed.
It is quite reasonable to point out that these talks could lead nowhere. Or, worse, they could break down and take us back to renewed hostility and even warfare. The reason to fear this outcome is that North Korea has not actually changed. The leader who tested nuclear bombs and missiles and threatened America with warfare has not been replaced. He may not be coming in out of the cold at all.
Given that concern, it is reasonable to hold off on making a judgment until there is more detail, such as a timetable for complete de-nuclearization and so on.
But such patience was not evident. It was as if Trump had one shot to get something from Kim and failed.
The error in my opinion derives from media obsession with the person of the American president. This both slants reporting and media commentary and influences the way experts deliver their opinions.
If truth be told, media love Donald Trump. He just has to scratch his head and it's newsworthy. Underlying almost all coverage is a view that he is morally and psychologically unfit to be president. (This is partly because he is a Republican, a party that has almost zero support among news reporters, and partly because, well, he is kind of unorthodox.)
The daily Trump story satisfies on the titillation level ― look what the idiot has done now ― and on the media self-righteousness level ― be warned, this is serious, this man has his finger on the button.
Had Barack Obama held this summit with Kim and achieved the same result, he would probably be up for his second Nobel Peace Prize. But because it's Trump, I expect that even if the North does de-nuclearize, sign a Korean war peace treaty, and open an embassy in Pyongyang and open the gulag, Trump will still be found wanting.
