A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Thursday, May 4, 2017
A Trump Meeting with Kim Jong Un! Why Not?
( May 3, 2017, Sydney, Sri Lanka Guardian) US
President, Donald Trump, speaking to Bloomberg News (1 May) has said
‘he would consider meeting with Kim Jong-un, if the circumstances
permit.’ This is not a bad idea at all, given the disastrous
consequences that any future war in Korea would entail. Writing from
Australia, the disaster of a war in the region is more real than writing
from Sri Lanka. Trump earlier said, ‘Kim is a smart cookie, he must be
having a tuff time with his generals.’
About Turns
According to some, and also to me, this could be a reflection of Trump’s
predicament as well. When he came to power, he appeared wanted to focus
more on fixing the American economy and national policy than going
after any ‘ideals’ or ‘interests’ outside the borders.
But then he took a dramatic turn, almost 90 degrees, and started
pouncing on other countries. Sending Carl Vinson (Armada) to the Korean
peninsula, and undertaking quite provocative military exercises in the
demilitarised zone, with South Korea were part of this pouncing. Of
course, the provocations were equally characteristic of the North
Koreans in recent times. But on the part of Trump, this was a clear
deviation from his declared policy, except calling names for China.
China policy softened, while the Korean policy toughened. This is at
least superficially.
‘Unpredictability’ or ‘erratic personal behaviour’ cannot be sufficient
explanations for Trump’s about turns. As the events since the alleged
CIA killing of John F. Kennedy, up until the dramatic changes of Barak
Obama’s overseas policies signify, there is a strong State/Military
Establishment behind many of the Presidents’ foreign policies. Obama’s
‘Pivot to Asia’ also was part of this establishment influence.
A major facet of this influence is to ‘take the enemies serious,’ ‘go
after them,’ and ‘pounce on them as much as possible,’ to ‘teach them
good lessons.’ Although Obama appeared one of the soft and liberal
minded President’s that America has ever produced, preparations for “The Coming War on China” became
intensified under Obama administration. What I have quoted above is the
title of John Pilger’s recent documentary film on the subject, and that
is also one of Pilger’s main arguments.
The Reasons
When Trump made dramatic turns in his foreign policy utterances, some
even speculated whether the establishment has defeated his
‘populist-nationalist’ revolt? I also speculated on the same. Of course,
it happened in practical terms, when the Courts turned down many of his
executive orders on ‘travel ban’ or ‘border controls.’ But we in Sri
Lanka or in Australia should be more worried about the other side of the
coin.
He himself turned down his policies in the foreign affairs sphere. His
best foreign-buddy, Vladimir Putin, during the election campaign, became
a virtual enemy thereafter on issues in Syria. Not that we have any
sympathy for Putin, but if the rapprochement continued, there was much
hope for world peace and particularly in the Middle East. He somewhat
denounced NATO as obsolete during elections, but in office recently, he
openly announced that it is not the case.
James George Jatras (writing to the Journal of the Strategic Culture
Foundation, 27 April) wondered whether this is only tactical, ‘one step
forward, two steps back.’ Because Trump does not seem to have a firm
grip on the government apparatus yet. He has to tread slowly, as the
whole establishment beyond the state-apparatus is in a full fury against
him. Jatras said, one of Trump’s closest advisors, Steve Bannon, is a
‘Leninist.’ Trump once called him “alt-left.”
That is anyway not our major concern, tactical or not. For world peace,
what Trump has expressed as his readiness to meet with Kim is a welcome
gesture, if it is genuine. The following what he exactly said on Monday.
“If
it would be appropriate for me to meet with him, I would absolutely…I
would be honored to do it. If it’s under … the right circumstances. But I
would do that. Most political people would never say that… But I’m
telling you under the right circumstances, I would meet with him.”
Over the weekend, he has also made a complementary remark of Kim Jong-un
saying he is ‘a smart cookie.’ Sean Spicer, the White House spokesman,
explained the praise: “He’s [Kim] obviously managed to lead his country
forward. He is a young person to be leading a country with nuclear
weapons.”
The UN?
Previously, Trump also asked the UN to intervene and do more about North
Korea (24 April). But not in the sense that we were suggesting (“Where is the UN? Korean Crisis is Aggravating,”
17 April). He was suggesting more and strong UN sanctions. That was
typical of a ‘Western’ government or a state leader. There was no
suggestion of ‘a carrot’ or negotiations or a meeting. During the height
of the tensions, the UN Secretary General should have visited or
approached the two countries and regimes (the North and the South). Or
at least phoned. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the UN? But that
didn’t happen. It is still appropriate since a meeting of the two
leaders, Trump and Kim, would be far-fetched at the moment.
It is possible that Kim might respond positively in some manner for the
suggestion of a meeting, but not his Generals. This is the same in the
case of the US, particularly the establishment. Already, backtracking
from Trump’s statement has started. It is possible even he himself might
say ‘a meeting is not appropriate or possible! Day by day, tensions are
mounting in the Korean peninsula.
Urgency for World Peace
It is important to resolve the Korean nuclear/missile crisis in a
peaceful manner. World public opinion is of utmost importance at this
stage. Lionel Bopage has also suggested that Australia should play a
mediating role in resolving the crisis through peaceful means (“No war Against North Korea!”
CT, 27 April). China in recent days has played a positive and a
peaceful role, already trying to mediate at least some issues. China and
especially her President, Xi Jinping, has earned President Trump’s
favor since their meeting in early April. While I write, China has also
welcomed Trump’s offer for a meeting with Kim.
Why not, therefore, President Xi mediating a meeting between Donald
Trump and Kim Jong-un, perhaps in Beijing? If it is achievable, the
world would definitely enter into a new era of peaceful negotiations, if
not full peace or harmony. Why not on the other hand, somebody in the
White House phoning Pyongyang and appeasing their fears of an ‘imminent
US nuclear war against them.’ According many experts, there are genuine
and/or exaggerated fears of an imminent US war against them, in North
Korea.
No one is going to benefit, not even the promoters, from most of the
conflicts or war at national or international level. This is a general
statement. Ordinary people are the main losers everywhere. The effort
should not only be to achieve peace in the Korean peninsula but all over
the world. A completely nuclear free world should be the ultimate
target of these efforts. If the exorbitant money spent on nuclear and
other destructive armaments are diverted/donated to good purposes such
as poverty alleviation and environmental protection, the world would be a
safe place for the new generations to live.