Dan Balz: Summits show willingness to turn traditional order on its head

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump during their historic summit. Photo / AP

President Donald Trump is now embarked on two ambitious foreign policy initiatives — redrawing the rules of international trade and defanging a nuclear-armed North Korea — that represent significant personal gambles. The question is, can he gain something politically from these efforts in the absence of demonstrable accomplishments?

The twin meetings of the past week, beginning with the Group of Seven gathering in Canada and followed immediately by the summit in Singapore with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, highlighted a President always willing to shake the traditional order in defiance of norms and procedures. This was how he got elected, and it is how he has operated from the start — governing by breaking crockery.

The G7 gathering and the Singapore summit taken together highlighted the President's willingness to go against the grain, to offend his friends when they get under his skin and butter up adversaries in a calculated effort to get his way.

His petulant reaction to relatively mild criticism from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (who said he would stand up for his country's interests) and his praise for one of the world's most brutal leaders produced head-spinning on all fronts.

What has been on display over the past five days are hallmarks of the Trumpian style: policy initiatives and processes that trample across political and establishment lines, great swings in rhetoric, promises and threats, anger and flattery.

But then what?

Trump is betting that it adds up to more than constant motion, that it is a winning political strategy in the end. It continues to bind him closely to his base.

It infuriates his opponents but often keeps them off balance at the same time.

On trade, more Democrats than Republicans support his tougher, more confrontational policies, though their general dislike of the President keeps many from expressing it.

His reaction to Trudeau's post-G7 news conference — he withdrew US support for the member nations' joint statement — generated widespread criticism and condemnation. In Singapore, he again attacked Trudeau and said the Prime Minister's comments would cost Canada "a lot of money".

His approach to North Korea may be even more unconventional. Earlier threats of "fire and fury" may have contributed to Kim's decision to seek a summit, although successful tests of weapons and ballistic missiles no doubt did as much. But by elevating a ruthless dictator on to the international stage, Trump handed the North Korean leader a propaganda victory that other presidents were unwilling to grant.

Initial reactions to the public scenes and photo-ops from Singapore were cautiously positive, a reflection of the desire to lower temperatures on the Korean Peninsula. But many politicians or former government officials see nothing but trouble in the President's approach.

Foreign policy analysts remain sceptical about the negotiations with Kim's regime, which they fear could be long and slow, and eventually end the way other efforts have — in failure. If that is the case, then how will the voters judge the President's record?

Trump's biggest gamble could be his confidence that his unorthodox approach, regardless of the outcomes, will produce tangible political dividends for 2018 and especially 2020.

That is an important part of what is at stake now.