By Jason Lim
It's true that last Sunday's meeting between President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un was more of a flash mob than a deliberate, calculated summit between heads of nations. However, give credit where it's due.
Today, no one is worried about an impending shooting war on the peninsula happening anytime soon when this was a distinct possibility less than two years ago.
In fact, President Trump has made more progress with North Korea than any other American president because he's playing to his strengths as a producer and showman.
By progress, I don't necessarily mean advances in negotiations over North Korea's nuclear program, but a de-escalation of tensions and a move away from potential military conflict. If I have to choose between a substantive and principled approach that leads to a war or made-for-TV, flashy summits that avert one, it's an easy choice.
As expected, the criticism from the progressives and foreign policy establishment came hard and fast. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, tweeted, "Our President shouldn't be squandering American influence on photo ops and exchanging love letters with a ruthless dictator.
Instead, we should be dealing with North Korea through principled diplomacy that promotes U.S. security, defends our allies, and upholds human rights."
Senator Bernie Sanders was quoted as saying, "But I don't want it simply to be a photo opportunity. The whole world's media was attracted there. What's going to happen tomorrow and the next day?
He has weakened the State Department. If we're going to bring peace to this world, we need a strong State Department. We need to move forward diplomatically, not just do photo opportunities."
Victor Cha, senior adviser and Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, echoed this sentiment, "But this made-for-TV event will only be remembered as historic if it leads to an agreement with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to fully and permanently give up his rogue nuclear weapons arsenal and ballistic missiles. Otherwise, the meeting is nothing more than a photo opportunity and media spectacle."
This is somewhat ironic coming from Cha since he served as one of the key architects of a denuclearization deal with North Korea that failed to stick during the Bush II years.
And it's not just Cha. What are the alternative options that these critics are offering to convince North Korea to voluntarily give up all nuclear program capacity upfront in return for sanctions relief after the fact, which is exactly what has been the U.S. negotiating position so far?
If you want to accuse Trump of being all pomp and no substance, then at least offer substance that hasn't proven to be a failure for the past 30 years.
Strangely enough, this situation reminds me of the last season and a half of Game of Thrones (GoT). What made GoT really exciting was the quality of the writing ― the rich details, nuanced characters, and unpredictability of the narrative were the foundation to the production values and direction that elevated GoT above other TV dramas.
When they ran out of George R. R. Martin's original writing, the show suffered greatly. Although they tried to make up the narrative shortcomings with flashy graphics and even flashier violence, it became all style and no substance.
This doesn't mean that style isn't important. Production, direction, acting, and everything that go into the making of a finished product are crucial. However, the substance is the writing. Without good writing, the product suffers and quality cannot be sustained.
This is similar to how the U.S. is dealing with North Korea. There is no one that's writing a compelling, exciting, and creative narrative.
It's as if you are bringing in different writers, but they are all somehow being compelled to write the same simplistic narrative consisting of bad, weird and puny North Korea not listening to the reasonable demands of the good, normal and powerful America.
You can talk about different variations of the sequencing step-by-step formula all you want, but this underlying good vs. evil assumption continues to drive the dynamics behind all negotiations. Worse, this assumption also drives the criticisms that're being aimed at Trump for meeting with Kim.
We all know that Trump isn't a writer. His strength is as a producer and talent. And it shouldn't be his job to write fresh material that he needs to put on a good show that's also satisfying and even historic. Rather than recycling the old, tired material, why not give Trump something that he can work with and maximize using his natural talents?
He's done more with bad material on North Korea than any other presidents before him. Imagine what he can do with a good script.
Where is George R. R. Martin when you need him? Oh yeah, probably finishing up the last book of his "A Song of Ice and Fire" series. Alright, I guess we can wait; that's almost just as important.
Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.
 |
Today, no one is worried about an impending shooting war on the peninsula happening anytime soon when this was a distinct possibility less than two years ago.
In fact, President Trump has made more progress with North Korea than any other American president because he's playing to his strengths as a producer and showman.
By progress, I don't necessarily mean advances in negotiations over North Korea's nuclear program, but a de-escalation of tensions and a move away from potential military conflict. If I have to choose between a substantive and principled approach that leads to a war or made-for-TV, flashy summits that avert one, it's an easy choice.
As expected, the criticism from the progressives and foreign policy establishment came hard and fast. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a leading Democratic presidential candidate, tweeted, "Our President shouldn't be squandering American influence on photo ops and exchanging love letters with a ruthless dictator.
Instead, we should be dealing with North Korea through principled diplomacy that promotes U.S. security, defends our allies, and upholds human rights."
Senator Bernie Sanders was quoted as saying, "But I don't want it simply to be a photo opportunity. The whole world's media was attracted there. What's going to happen tomorrow and the next day?
He has weakened the State Department. If we're going to bring peace to this world, we need a strong State Department. We need to move forward diplomatically, not just do photo opportunities."
Victor Cha, senior adviser and Korea chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, echoed this sentiment, "But this made-for-TV event will only be remembered as historic if it leads to an agreement with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un to fully and permanently give up his rogue nuclear weapons arsenal and ballistic missiles. Otherwise, the meeting is nothing more than a photo opportunity and media spectacle."
This is somewhat ironic coming from Cha since he served as one of the key architects of a denuclearization deal with North Korea that failed to stick during the Bush II years.
And it's not just Cha. What are the alternative options that these critics are offering to convince North Korea to voluntarily give up all nuclear program capacity upfront in return for sanctions relief after the fact, which is exactly what has been the U.S. negotiating position so far?
If you want to accuse Trump of being all pomp and no substance, then at least offer substance that hasn't proven to be a failure for the past 30 years.
Strangely enough, this situation reminds me of the last season and a half of Game of Thrones (GoT). What made GoT really exciting was the quality of the writing ― the rich details, nuanced characters, and unpredictability of the narrative were the foundation to the production values and direction that elevated GoT above other TV dramas.
When they ran out of George R. R. Martin's original writing, the show suffered greatly. Although they tried to make up the narrative shortcomings with flashy graphics and even flashier violence, it became all style and no substance.
This doesn't mean that style isn't important. Production, direction, acting, and everything that go into the making of a finished product are crucial. However, the substance is the writing. Without good writing, the product suffers and quality cannot be sustained.
This is similar to how the U.S. is dealing with North Korea. There is no one that's writing a compelling, exciting, and creative narrative.
It's as if you are bringing in different writers, but they are all somehow being compelled to write the same simplistic narrative consisting of bad, weird and puny North Korea not listening to the reasonable demands of the good, normal and powerful America.
You can talk about different variations of the sequencing step-by-step formula all you want, but this underlying good vs. evil assumption continues to drive the dynamics behind all negotiations. Worse, this assumption also drives the criticisms that're being aimed at Trump for meeting with Kim.
We all know that Trump isn't a writer. His strength is as a producer and talent. And it shouldn't be his job to write fresh material that he needs to put on a good show that's also satisfying and even historic. Rather than recycling the old, tired material, why not give Trump something that he can work with and maximize using his natural talents?
He's done more with bad material on North Korea than any other presidents before him. Imagine what he can do with a good script.
Where is George R. R. Martin when you need him? Oh yeah, probably finishing up the last book of his "A Song of Ice and Fire" series. Alright, I guess we can wait; that's almost just as important.
Jason Lim (jasonlim@msn.com) is a Washington, D.C.-based expert on innovation, leadership and organizational culture.
