For those living in the northern climes of our great country, the season is just beginning to change. Summer has lost its worst heat. The air smells and tastes different … like Spring except that unlike Spring, instead of freshness … there is an undertone of decay.
At the end of the American century, her voice has become as shrill as those listening to it are few. And Kim Jong Un is thumbing his nose. Following a missile fired across the bow of an ally, he has had the audacity to explode a nuclear device an order of magnitude more powerful than the last. It is unquestionably thermonuclear, in other words a hydrogen bomb, which from released photos appears to be of a size not difficult to position atop a missile.
Under these circumstances, rationality would dictate bringing allies and those with influence over North Korea closer. The President, instead, is fighting a trade war with South Korea, China and anyone else he can sniff out.
Meanwhile, inane military threats continue to make nonsense out of sense, leading South Korea’s President Moon Jae In to assure his people it will be up to his government to decide whether their country goes to war with North Korea or not.
President Putin was asked a few days ago what he thought of Mr. Trump as President. Without a trace of irony, he replied he as President of Russia must do the best for it, and President Trump has to do the same for his country. Seemed like code for … I am quite happy with Trump as president. He should be. He has a free hand in Syria, and the U.S. is at loggerheads with almost every major world power. World leaders have taken Trump’s measure and decided that, as a president, he is a nincompoop.
How did a businessman and TV reality show star with absolutely no political experience, who was manifestly a diplomatic zero, get elected in the first place? As they say in the press, he was good copy — “… damn good for CBS,” said CEO Leslie Moonves. The coverage Trump attracted and received gratis from U.S. media was worth $5 billion according to mediaQuant. Trump has a knack for it, and the media are happy to go along — it generates ad revenues.
But then think of the alternative. Hillary the Hawk could have taken us to war with Russia over Ukraine. After all, it was her State Department that initiated the Ukraine coup. On December 13, 2013, Victoria Nuland, Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia, boasted of ‘investing $5 billion’ and ‘five years worth of work and preparation.’
Everyone knows what the North Koreans want. They want a formal peace treaty, acceptance of their government, and more trade and economic links. Enough of the latter and it increases leverage, so why not give it to them.
Unfortunately for us, we have the Donald. The Russians have had their Ivan the Terrible. Never to be outdone, the U.S. now has Trump the Terrible. If the word is the same, the meaning … well, that’s the beauty of the English language. Worth noting, they were not quite so ambivalent in the Middle Ages and had he been a Plantagenet, we all know what he would have been called.
Dr Arshad M Khan (http://ofthisandthat.org/index.html) is a former Professor based in the U.S. whose comments over several decades have appeared in a wide-ranging array of print and internet media. His work has been quoted in the U.S. Congress and published in the Congressional Record.
I failed to understand what message does the article like to convey? Is the article mongering war, or is it a script for having laugh?
The article says:
“At the end of the American century, her voice has become as shrill as those listening to it are few. And Kim Jong Un is thumbing his nose. Following a missile fired across the bow of an ally, he has had the audacity to explode a nuclear device an order of magnitude more powerful than the last. It is unquestionably thermonuclear, in other words a hydrogen bomb, which from released photos appears to be of a size not difficult to position atop a missile.
“Under these circumstances, rationality would dictate bringing allies and those with influence over North Korea closer. The President, instead, is fighting a trade war with South Korea, China and anyone else he can sniff out.”
Then, does the article want a war with Kim of NK? Is it suggesting strong war-talks aimed at Kim of NK so that tension increases? Is this the reason for getting angry with Trump? Whose agenda is this — encouraging war-mongering?
The article says:
Putin said “I am quite happy with Trump as president. He [Putin] should be. He [Putin] has a free hand in Syria, and the U.S. is at loggerheads with almost every major world power. World leaders have taken Trump’s measure and decided that, as a president, he is a nincompoop.”
Does the article like Trump to get engaged with Putin in a war? Is it suggesting Trump to trample Syria — an open, much powerful and violent imperialist intervention in Syria than the ongoing present intervention?
The article says:
“How did a businessman and TV reality show star with absolutely no political experience, who was manifestly a diplomatic zero, get elected in the first place?”
Probably, the article likes to forget that another president was an actor from Hollywood before stepping into the world of politics, before getting elected as a governor; another president was a lawyer before stepping into the room of politics, before getting elected as a senator; and there are many other cases in the US, in the UK and in many other countries including India. What was Kissinger doing before his involvement with geopoitics? What were two Khans — Ayub and Yahya — doing before they got involved with politics? What’s in France now? What was the present German chancellor doing before she stepped into the room of politics? And, don’t many scholars pass comments on and analyze politics without having any experience with politics, geopolitics and diplomacy; and not only without having experience, totally ignoring elementary information of politics also?
The article says:
“Everyone knows what the North Koreans want. They want a formal peace treaty, acceptance of their government, and more trade and economic links. Enough of the latter and it increases leverage, so why not give it to them.”
Is it so easy to “give”? It’s now known to all the long, silent, secret dialogue Nixon was having with China before formal announcement of a declaration following Kissinger. What’s the position and intention of the article: war-mongering? Or, an easy-friendship? Confusion? To create confusion or to get confused? Difficult to decide!
The article says:
“we have the Donald. The Russians have had their Ivan the Terrible.”
Is it terming Puting as Ivan the Terrible? Whose tone is this? Is it of a faction of imperialists?
The article finds “beauty of the English language” as it plays with the word “terrible”. Other languages also have beauty although there’s no need to find the beauty in the word “terrible”. Arabic, Baanglaa, Hindi, Persian, Urdu, and all languages are beautiful. It’s only the English colonialists, who find beauty only in their language, a chauvinist, racist attitude, which is primarily found among colonialists and imperialists. In today’s world, it’s a shame. On February 21 each year, millions and millions of Baangaalees sing: Aamaree Baanglaa bhaashaa. The same is found in many other languages. Everybody love the language she/he learned from her/his mother. The same is in case of countries: “my country is beautiful.” Has not famous poet Iqbal said: Saare jaahaan se achchha Hindoostaan haamaaraa” (Hindoostaan, my land is better than the rest of the world)? In Bengal, one poet writes: Sakal desher shera se je aamaar janmabhoomee (My country is the best). Venezuela is described by some colonialists as the land, where honey flows down. The same is found about many other lands including the US. Should I name some poets or cite some poems? No more now.
With such war-mongering, chauvinist, and confusing article what education can one ordinary reader have, especially in a period of increasing tension in many parts of the world? People want peace while imperialists want war, tension.