by Graham Pierrepoint
The United Nations is, generally, seen as a hub for the various countries of the world to come together and to discuss matters at large that concern the various innocent millions that their leaders represent. It is also a stage for much drama – and with North Korea having recently defied the advice of the UN to continue nuclear testing – which could have the potential to reach as far afield as US shores – it seems that time is slowly ticking away for a suitable resolution to be found in the body of the UN’s member states.
US President Trump has made a speech to the UN to advise that the US will ‘totally destroy’ the reclusive state should they pose a threat to America – though that such action will ‘hopefully not be necessary’. His speech is his maiden address to the UN General Assembly in New York – and he took his time on the podium in an effort to rally support to come together against Kim Jong Un, who, in idiosyncratic Trump fashion, referred to the dictator as a ‘rocket man on a suicide mission’. While not everyone may find the President’s rhetoric or phrasing to always be appropriate, it cannot be denied that he has the US’ safety in light of Pyongyang threats at the forefront of his agenda.
Trump also took time to advise on ‘rogue nations’ – that countries such as Iran were exporters of violence in the Middle East and that a nuclear handshake with the country was an embarrassing move. It’s thought that Trump may continue to oppose the likes of Iran as he continues to rally against North Korea, who has arguably provided the dominant threat to world peace in recent weeks.
North Korea’s escalating rhetoric and continued testing of nuclear weapons – some which are thought to be more powerful than those deployed during World War II – has understandably concerned much of the civilized world. Trump has famously held back on taking action so far with a ‘wait and see’ attitude – clearly indicating he is willing to act if Pyongyang makes the first move – while Russia’s Vladimir Putin has continued to assert that peaceful discussion is the most prudent route to diffusing the rising tension levels. Could we be heading into a different kind of Cold War – and could peaceful discussion be enough to appease Mr Kim?