Yesterday, President Donald J. Trump made headlines by becoming the first sitting U.S. president to step across the border at the Demilitarized Zone and on to North Korean soil. While many pundits were quick to herald Trump's meeting with Kim Jong Un at the border as a significant moment in history, the Mainstream Media was inflamed, repulsed and shocked at what they saw as Trump cosying up to a brutal dictator, and thus in the process "legitimizing" Kim Jong Un's oppressive leadership.
Many of the Democratic contenders for the 2020 presidential election (with the exception of Andrew Yang) were also quick to condemn Trump's actions.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, said:
"We want to see a denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, a reduction of these missiles, but it’s not as easy as just going and, you know, bringing a hot dish over the fence to the dictator next door, [...] This is a ruthless dictator and when you go forward you have to have clear focus and a clear mission and clear goals. And that has been our problem so far,”
Beto O'Rourke also fired shots, criticizing Trump for "adding legitimacy to Kim Jong Un" on CBS's "Face the Nation". "Despite three years of almost bizarre foreign policy from this president, this country is no safer when it comes to North Korea," he said.
Andrew Yang, the most rational and sane contender among the Democratic pool for the 2020 presidential election nomination, offered a different perspective, stating on Twitter that "Anything that improves the political climate on the Korean peninsula and engages North Korea on its nuclear program is a good thing." It's no wonder why he was barely addressed at the 2nd night of the Democratic Debate. He only had 4 minutes worth of speaking time, and he claimed that his mic was shut off. Being one of the two heterodox Democrats in the Race (the other being Tulsi Gabbard), I honestly think his assertion is true.
Whether Mr. Yang was telling the truth about his mic being cut off or not - his tweet is certainly correct.
Trump engaging with Kim in a friendly manner is not reckless behaviour. Neither is it dangerous, nor akin to cosying up to a brutal dictator. It's simply an effective strategy - a strategy of diplomacy rather than one of hostility.
If we are to learn anything from recent history, then we must accept that every time a Western power such as the United States directly intervenes or meddles in another nation's affairs, ostensibly for that nation's own good - chaos ensues. The Iraq War was fought over the false claim, or rather - blatant lie, that the Iraqi government was in possession of WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction.) When this was proven false, the Bush Administration attempted to justify its incursion into Iraqi sovereign territory by explaining that they were liberating the people from Saddam Hussein's dictatorial clutches. What we are left with today is a vacuum that has allowed Islamic terrorists to gain a stronger foothold in Iraq.
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi also brutally oppressed the Libyan people, and the United States under the Obama Administration facilitated his eventual downfall, with Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, overseeing the "liberation" of Tripoli. Look at Libya today - a blubbering mess of its former self with armed gangs and factions fighting for sole authority.
It seems that most of the Democratic Party has forgotten its peaceful foreign policy approach in 2003 when it was fiercely opposed to the Iraq War, and most of them today seem to want to retain Bush's "Axis of Evil" narrative - the kind of rhetoric that would damage relations between United States and the DPRK further and potentially lead the U.S. and North Korea to the brink of a nuclear catastrophe.
Unlike the aforementioned examples of Iraq and Libya, there was one regime that lost its grip on power consolidated through a totalitarian government that brutally oppressed its people for decades, and this was fascinatingly done through a peaceful process. That regime was the Soviet Union, otherwise formally known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R).
How did the Soviet regime fall? Not through any military involvement of any sort on the part of the United States of America.
The Soviet Union collapsed because the United States, its Cold War rival, pursued a peaceful course of action - diplomacy with the Soviet regime.
Better relations between the Soviet Union and the United States led to 'Perestroika' ("Restructuring of the Economy") and 'Glasnost' ("Openness") being implemented by Mikhail Gorbachev in the 1980s. This paved the way for Western-style entertainment to be introduced to the Soviet people - although retaining a certain kind of mechanical rigidity and an overall tense atmosphere emblematic of the Soviet regime. State officials continued to be oppressive and were quick to censor anything deemed as threatening or detrimental to the interests of the State.
However, the introduction of Western-style pop culture eventually proved fatal to the Soviet regime and contributed greatly to its downfall. As Western pop culture seeped into the minds of the people, they began to lose faith in the State. Michael Malice writes about this in his most recent and fascinating work, 'The New Right':
"Do you not agree that low culture was instrumental in our Cold War victory?"
"Despite years of Soviet agitprop, they [the Soviet people] then came away from watching trashy soaps like 'Dynasty' with one simple question: "Why do the maids have fur coats in America, while I'm literally wiping my ass with newspaper?""
Malice is absolutely correct. Low culture, introduced through greater economic freedom in the Soviet Union, was one of the primary factors that led to the demise of the State apparatus in the USSR - a "cultural revolution" of sorts; an epiphany experienced by its people who were previously devoted to serving the State and the State alone.
Malice goes on to importantly observe:
"The same process is being repeated right now in north Korea, where trashy south Korean culture - television programs, movie stars, and K-pop music- is doing as much if not more to radicalize DPRK youth against the regime as any form of propaganda."
President Trump seeking better ties with North Korea can only mean one thing if effectively pursued to its fullest extent: a greater form of cultural exchange between the two nations through greater economic cooperation. This would lead to the North Korean people being introduced to the outside world and different cultures.
If the North Korean regime is to lose its grip on its people, this is the way to go.
Hostilities don't help. Diplomacy does. To this extent, Trump is pursuing the right course of action.
No comments:
Post a Comment