Donald Trump and North Korea

When Donald Trump was elected as the president of the United States five months ago, I felt concerned for the future.  Many of my American friends told me how dissappointed they were with the results, and they were confused about what their own futures would hold. Despite the surmountable fear that surrounded Trump, I felt reassured that his actions wouldn’t strongly effect me. 

However, it now appears that I had no reason to feel so smug. Trump literally stormed into power, and he has used his position rather aggressively. Initially, I believed that he was all bark and no bite, but his actions against Syria and Afghanistan have proved me wrong. Vice President Pence said that the actions in Syria proved “the strength and resolve of our new president”, but what I see is a man with an unchecked capacity for destruction. This concern was reiterated by an extremely insightful podcast by Radiolab called Nukes where they explained the extent of the presidents power over nuclear warfare. Unfortunately, it appears that the president has complete and almost instantaneous authority when it comes to deploying nuclear bombs.

Now, Trump’s turned his attention to North Korea, (a country that also happens to be a close neighbour of mine). Trump has said that North Korea has “gotta behave” when it comes to their plans for intercontinental ballistic missiles. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that North Korea is likely to quell their nuclear program because of Trump’s somewhat patronising words. 

Over the past few weeks, the news has been increasingly filled with the Trump/North Korea dispute. Alongside that, friends and family have voiced their own concern for my safety as I live in such close proximity to Pyongyang. To be completely honest, I’m currently not overly concerned about the prospect of nuclear warfare. Over the past couple of years I’ve observed the numerous terrorist attacks that have spread over Europe. As far as I can tell, nobody expected these events, and therefore the people who were effected by them weren’t living in fear. If I allow the disputes of the people in power to concern me, they will only cause me unnecessary stress. Therefore, I’m trying to think positively, and hope that this situation doesn’t blow up on my doorstep. 


An isolated island 

As the year nears to an end, it appears that 2016 has been overshadowed by politics. Brexit is one episode that Brits won’t forget in a hurry. No matter which way you voted, Brexit is probably still a sore subject. The referendum tore through the nation and left a gaping scar that will take a long time to heal. ‘Remainers’ were heartbroken at being ripped away from Europe, and leavers have yet to see the repercussions of their vote. The whole escapade has left the nation questioning what is going to happen as 43 years of treaties are unravelled to remove the UK from the union.

            The six months that have followed the referendum have been spent in a precarious limbo. No one seems to know what will happen between the UK and the EU over the next few years as they are untangled from one another, and the timeline is extremely ambiguous. News sources still rage about Brexit and the slow, uncertain pace that it is taking. The outcome is still hotly discussed, but it seems that many people have started to see that the grass will not be greener when Britain re-establishes itself as a lonely island nation. In fact, many of the claims that were made in the Brexit campaign have been proven to be completely ridiculous.

            Immigration was a defining issue of Brexit, and the main reason that many people voted to leave. Prior to the referendum 330,000 people moved to the UK every year, and around half of those were Europeans. As the campaign reached its climax, many news sources ran the stories of the refugee crisis perpendicular to those about Brexit. People began to fear the deluge of refugees, many of them Syrian, that appeared to be racing towards the British border. This fearmongering led to the victimisation of innocent refugees who were fleeing from oppression in their native countries. Brexit campaigners increased paranoia about the flow of migrants; asserting that they would wash away British identity, and this was something that many voters wanted to protect. Therefore, they attacked free movement to the UK, and claimed that if we left the EU this would be restricted. Due to this irrational paranoia about immigrants, many people surmised that leaving the EU would completely resolve the issue. However, the campaign failed to highlight that the refugees were not fleeing countries in Europe, and therefore leaving the union would not affect their migration to Britain.

The EU has asserted that the UK will no longer have access to the single market if they don’t accept free movement of its members. Theresa May, who voted to remain, has the preposterous task of negotiating the terms of Brexit with the EU. She has two options: soft Brexit, where the UK will remain in the single market and Europeans will be granted free movement; or hard Brexit, where there will be no compromise. The terms of her proposal must be accepted by all 27 countries of the union. It is no wonder that May appears paranoid about unveiling her plans; with the country so divided on this topic, neither option will please everyone.

            As we look to 2017, many people feel that not much is going to change. Brexit will gradually be implemented, but many contemplate that the proposals will be edited and altered so that they hardly change anything. The referendum has left a distinctly bitter taste, and it has raised the question of why we voted and were our voices even heard. There is also uncertainty about the EU, as the second country to leave the union (Greenland left in 1985 after their own referendum that mirrored Britain with 52% voting to leave), many speculate that other countries might follow suit further rupturing the EU.