There are a few fundamental things I used to believe everyone agreed on in politics.

A big one was that favorite of beauty pageants, world peace. I assumed for the longest time if there was no other question where we could find common ground, we could at least all say we wanted a safer, conflict-free world.

I have since revised my assumptions. More and more, it’s becoming clear there is a segment of the population that is so craven it will only agitate for peace when said peace serves their own interests, political or otherwise. Politics, to them, is less an expression of real-world struggles for dignity and comfort and more a team sport — and if their team stands to lose or look bad it doesn’t matter how beneficial a policy might be, it must be fought tooth and nail.

This tendency can be observed in the Western reaction to US President Donald Trump’s summit with Kim Jong-un, chairman of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s State Affairs Commission and the country’s top leader. A historic event, Tuesday’s summit in Singapore saw a further easing of tensions between the two countries and another step on the path toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It was another landmark occasion in a peace process which began in January, when Kim and Republic of Korea President Moon Jae-in agreed to talks.

I have made it abundantly clear, in my writing here and elsewhere, that I am no fan of Trump. His domestic policies have been nothing short of disastrous; his antagonistic behavior toward the rest of the world even worse. Despite this, I feel no hesitation when I admit this summit, and what it represents, is an unambiguously great moment. Holding these two ideas in my mind does not cause some great tear in the psyche.

But many pundits in the West, the US especially, seem hell-bent on decrying the summit with the harshest possible language. Dialogue with Kim, they claim, “l(fā)egitimizes” the DPRK government. Shaking his hand does the world a disservice, they say. Even the placement of DPRK flags next to those of the US — standard practice in any meeting between heads of state — is considered shameful. But the DPRK has been a full member of the United Nations since 1991. It has diplomatic relations with 164 states. This is five more than Israel, yet when Trump meets Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu there is no wailing or gnashing of teeth.

The reasons for this should be obvious: Israel is a US ally, and the DPRK is not. When commentators object to treating the DPRK like any other country — which it is — what they really object to is the bucking of a foreign policy consensus that has maintained military encampments around the world and interfered in the affairs of countless sovereign nations. This has been the norm for decades, even under “l(fā)eft-leaning” presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. By engaging directly Trump has become the exception here, not the rule.

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, though. This does not mean Trump will be any less hawkish overall — we must remember that only recently his administration illegally pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and ordered strikes on government targets in Syria. Just because his approach has been successful on this one specific issue doesn’t mean it’s time to start singing his praises. But it also doesn’t mean critics, who only recently swore they were anti-war, must rattle the sabers to make a show of opposing Trump.

As example, we need only look at the response to the possibility Trump would end joint military exercises with the ROK, long a source of tension on the peninsula. This has always been seen as a necessary precondition to talks between the two countries, and the DPRK’s willingness to suspend nuclear tests without a formal end to these war games was an enormous show of good faith. You wouldn’t know it from listening to some media figures, though.

While this does mirror the “dual suspension” approach China had previously proposed, viewing this process in terms of winning or losing reeks of tribalism and old-fashioned thinking. Both the nuclear tests and the joint military exercises were provocative; ending both puts dialogue on far better footing. With the way some people talk, you’d think they want the world to stay on the brink of apocalypse forever. In any conceivable circumstance, conversation is preferable to nuclear war. This is not a controversial opinion, or at the very least shouldn’t be.

Peace is not a zero-sum game, and geopolitics is not about the country with the strongest military dictating how the rest of the world should behave. If we are to avoid large-scale conflict, concessions will have to be made. Those incapable of understanding this should not be in a position to influence world affairs. This would normally include Donald Trump — but in this case, he has mercifully deviated from standard behavior.

I have hope for this peace process. I believe the best possible thing for the US to do would be to step aside and let Koreans handle Korean matters themselves, without any meddling. I also realize the likelihood of this happening is low. So if the US must stay involved, it’s preferable it happen with someone who is open to options deemed unthinkable by the foreign policy intelligentsia. Trump’s authorship of The Art of the Deal has been in question for some time, but he does have one apparent advantage over his predecessors — he’s willing to sit at the table.

The author is a copy editor with chinadaily.com.cn.

(The opinions expressed here are those of the writer and do not represent the views of China Daily and China Daily website.)