Singapore 2018: An Alternate Narrative

The outcome of the Singapore summit is of course unknown but I find several things striking. Or rather, what's striking is what is not being said, how the summit is not being framed.

Once again it is truly stunning that if Obama had set up this meeting it would be decried and denounced by American conservatives. They would pull out the oft used 'amateur' card and rebuke him for meeting with 'evil' leaders. They attacked him when he said he would meet with Iranian president Ahmadinejad. Of course they also referred to the latter as a dictator which only further demonstrated that it was the conservative commentators who were the amateurs in the realm of geopolitics.

Clinton was castigated for attempting a rapprochement with North Korea during the 1990's and he attempted in earnest to cut a deal at the very end of his presidency but ran out of time. The incoming Bush administration quickly shut down any attempt at diplomacy with Pyongyang.

Of course Reagan was called a dupe for meeting with Gorbachev and many conservatives were horrified to watch Nixon shake hands with a monster like Mao Tse-Tung and with Soviet leader Brezhnev. But history was revised and recast. What was once reprehensible becomes praiseworthy, heroic and is lionised.

Consider this, Trump is part of a faction that believes the US shouldn't disperse power and steer the empire by means of multilateral treaties, agreements and various frameworks. All of this is viewed as a waste of time and expensive. Raw power is sufficient and yet the advocates of Amero-Globalist Multilateral imperialism (the Establishment) will criticise this Uber-Nationalist Unilateral view as shortsighted and weak. Trump, Bolton, Cheney and others who hold this view destroy all the tools in the diplomatic and economic arsenals and rely on threat and America's overwhelming military power.

But what if it doesn't work? They've eliminated all the alternatives and America is forced to either go to war or stand down.

Or in this case, they've chosen to spin the narrative.

In 2002, Bush identified North Korea as part of the Axis of Evil. It was later admitted that North Korea was included because they wanted to avoid the charge that the War on Terror was merely a war on Islam. Of course many figures surrounding Bush did indeed want to start a war with North Korea but it wasn't a burning priority. Iraq and Iran were in their sights.

North Korea took the threat seriously and began to pursue a nuclear programme in earnest. In the meantime Saddam Hussein who had eliminated his WMD programmes was toppled and executed. Gadaffi who had agreed to eliminate his programmes was re-admitted to the international community but in 2011 was effectively betrayed by NATO, overthrown and executed.

That same year saw the death of Kim Jong-il and the rise of Kim Jong-un who was desperate to cement his power. He pursued a ballistic missile programme, finalised North Korea's nuclear programme culminating in the development of a hydrogen bomb.

Now post-2017 during Trump's tenure a crisis quickly developed and has (at present) led to the 'historic' summit.

Trump wants to spin it as his 'tough talk' has driven 'Rocket Man' to the table. He obviously fears the United States and is ready to back down.

But couldn't one also say that the summit is a victory for North Korea and a humiliation and acquiescence on the part of Washington?

Kim Jong-il wanted to meet with Clinton but was told 'no' unless he met certain conditions. His son has (it could be argued) forced the American hand... and on his own terms. In many ways this is a victory over the Clinton-Bush-Obama era policies. It is Trump and his blustering policy that has failed and for Kim Jong-un this is the moment of triumph.

But there are doubts.

Kim may have realised his nation and Washington were on path of confrontation and unless they diverted then catastrophe would ensue. Trump's doctrine leaves no other option. Pyongyang could certainly wreak havoc but in the end, they will certainly lose. The regime will not survive.

Kim may be willing to 'flip' and enter an arrangement with Washington... one that will leave Beijing scrambling and stunned. Kim will have his own reasons for this. His relationship with China could probably be described as love/hate. He may go down as the great traitor to North Korea, the one who surrendered to the American monstrosity, the entity that annihilated their country in the 1950's.

Or, he may come out of this the big hero, the one who transformed North Korea and saved it.

But somewhere in the back of his mind he has to be wondering... can we trust the Americans? Every instinct has to tell him no.

Everything may go smoothly for weeks, months and even years. But someday the Americans will turn and take him and the regime out. Will he end up like Gaddafi, brutalised by an American sponsored mob in the streets?

No one knows what the future holds but at present I don't see this as Trump's great triumph. Truly he is the amateur. Most presidents to some extent are. Not everyone comes into office having this kind of experience. Obama didn't, Bush II didn't, Reagan didn't. Neither did Carter, Ford, Johnson, Kennedy etc...

But there's a difference. These men (with some exceptions) were willing to learn and listen to their advisors. Trump does not and he is truly the amateur and on an unprecedented level.

Sorry, diplomacy isn't anything like the 'Art of the Deal' and Trump's business acumen has also been mythologised. He's not what presents himself to be.

On the one hand I'm glad there are moves being made that may lead to a more peaceful situation.

On the other hand the North Korean regime is monstrous and it is preposterous that professing Christians like Mike Pompeo will sit and shake hands with men like Kim. So much for Christian principles in government. The Kim regime has been one of the persecutors of Christians in modern history.

That said, the American regime is also dripping with blood and so in many ways I see two beasts embracing.

But there's something disturbing about it all. Maybe I'm most disturbed by the spin, by the media's narratives, by the way the story is being framed. I don't see any real victory here, at least not morally.

I think in many ways this is Kim's victory but you're just not going to hear that.

We'll have to wait and see what comes of this. I am dubious but in this case I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

But I'm not sure what solution can be found. There's more to this than North Korea simply de-nuclearising... whatever is meant by that. The Americans still have tens of thousands of troops in the South and Beijing is still very much a part of any future arrangement. They can make or break this.... just like they did in 1950.