With the predicament between the US and North Korea seemingly reaching its climax, it seems Donald Trump, with the assistance of his Government, may be laying the groundwork for a safe conclusion to the events. In order to ensure this, they may be preparing a response, with this retort perhaps having ever-increasing relevance due to the global quest for stability in a period where nationalistic tendencies seem to be at the forefront. This may ultimately enhance Trump’s credibility as president, as whilst other leaders of the US have recorded superior approval ratings, with Trump himself having recorded high levels previously also, ensuring there may be a safe response, with perhaps an agreement between the two nations, may lead to increased levels of support.
During Trump’s presidential campaign, he seemed to focus on a nationalistic undertone, with the vast majority of his policies supporting his slogan: ‘Make America Great Again.’ A main focal point of this seemed to be ensuring the safety of his citizens, and with the recent protests in Virginia perhaps resulting in this ideology requiring to be reinforced, he may be aiming to do so via the protection of his citizens, most notably in Guam. Whilst Kim Jong-un may be acting for the good of his people, potentially carrying out nuclear tests may directly counteract Trump’s goals, and in detecting his counterpart’s actions he may have showcased the responsiveness and efficiency of his equipment, whilst also highlighting his ability to detect signs early in order to draw up a response.
With North Korean media having confirmed the tremor occurred by means other than an earthquake, it seems the necessity to nullify North Korea’s overarching goals may have intensified. As such, the Pentagon has involved itself in the predicament, and with this building amongst the most established and recognised in the world, their involvement may prove the predicament may be at the forefront of US focus. Their proficient professionals may also play a pivotal role, with James Mattis boasting a wide array of experience in similar predicaments, and in dealing with world leaders, thus possessing the required credentials to productively impact the situation. In his recent speech, he outlined the potential repercussions of a North Korean advancement, and with a specific focus on phrases to highlight American prowess, he may be instilling confidence in the American population.
With the US amongst the most well-equipped nations in the world, alongside having one of the largest expenditures on armed capabilities, it seems this tactic may reap dividends. Yet, other high ranking influencers seem to have vocalised their desire for a resolve to the situation, with both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn amongst these. Although the pair seem to having opposing views on the vast majority of their policies, both seem to be aiming for global stability, and in bypassing differing political stances and ideologies in order to achieve this goal, they may act as the catalyst in laying the foundations which future generations may replicate. As such, whilst the US’ involvement may inspire other nations to act similarly, potentially negotiating a peace treaty with North Korea, as opposed to utilising their armed capabilities, may showcase a better array of leadership traits, and thus other world leaders may similarly productively impact the events, acting as the persuasive mediators to ensure stability.
Ultimately, Trump and his Government’s stance on North Korea may ultimately pay dividends for the rest of the globe, as whilst short-term he may be inspiring other world leaders to act similarly, and stand versus an ideology which may solely reap benefits for his opposing number, he may long-term be drawing attention to the situation in North Korea, and the predicament faced by their citizens. This may in turn lead to assistance for them, and if Trump plays a role in enhancing the standard of living for North Korean citizens, he may further display the necessary traits to lead the country to prosperity. Considering the memorial for Passchendaele occurred earlier this year, these levels of intervention, if driven by the desire to achieve stability, may ensure events like this may be kept in memory rather than replicated.
How may other countries utilise the US’ stance to contribute to global stability?