WHILE our immediate priority is next month’s general election, the well-publicised current world tensions should be of no less concern to smaller nations than to the major players directly responsible for resolving them.

It is in our interests as much as theirs to preserve international peace and stability, since a slide into serious conflict involving the use of weapons of mass destruction would have widespread effects in an interconnected world.

The problems facing President Trump in North Korea and Syria are not new but they have now developed into geopolitical crises. He entered the White House on a platform of isolationism with his vow to make America first in every sphere of activity; now, in fulfilling his priority of also making it safe and protecting the mainland, he has shown himself, within his first 100 days, to be an interventionist in the traditional style of a conventional Republican president committed to exercising the USA’s role of global leadership.

His predispositions on the campaign trail have surely not matched the reality of the hideously complex conflicts raging in the world with which he has been confronted on taking office, and his commitment to increase military spending and to use US military might wisely now seem almost statesmanlike.

In launching 59 Tomahawk missiles on Syria in response to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons against its own people, then dropping on Afghanistan the largest non-nuclear bomb ever used in combat, followed by deployment (now subject to doubt) of a naval task force in waters near North Korea, the President has been widely applauded for acting decisively and responsibly.

His actions have been seen as a sign of resolve and strength in a troubled world and thus reassuring to the US’s allies - and they have been in marked contrast to his predecessor’s policy of disengagement which emboldened the West’s adversaries, including countries like Iran as well as North Korea with their aim of developing nuclear weapons.

In Syria, the US show of strength seems designed not just to hasten the downfall of Assad, who has refused to respect international law banning the use of chemical weapons, but also perhaps to provide an opportunity, indirectly, for the Russians to disentangle themselves from this discredited leader and even co-operate in the West’s efforts to defeat ISIS.

Most recently, the emphasis has switched to the Korean peninsula where tensions are coming to a head. The international consensus is that the threat of North Korea’s nuclear weapons testing under an unstable leader is no longer acceptable and cannot be tolerated. Its continued development of such weapons is seen as provocative, destabilising and threatening behaviour. In particular, the Trump administration has showed its determination to forestall North Korea’s quest to produce a nuclear weapon capable of striking the US mainland.

It has stated that the Obama policy of so-called strategic patience - a euphemism, in the eyes of some, for disengagement and deliberate inaction - has ended and that North Korea’s declared readiness to use nuclear weapons is a danger to global stability and world peace. Finally, after years of procrastination, it is clear that a US president is prepared to confront this danger head on.

Amidst the rhetoric and posturing, the US’ use of diplomacy is surely wise in dealing with North Korea’s belligerence including a possible preemptive strike on America, not least by seeking to persuade China to steer Kim Jong-un away from his reckless path through imposition of trade and financial sanctions. Moreover, Vice President Pence’s tour of Southeast Asia will have reassured allies that, if the North Koreans pressed the nuclear button, there would be an overwhelming US response.

The key to peace during the Cold War was nuclear parity between the West and the Soviet Union and the fear of mutual mass destruction which served as a chilling deterrent. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons the stakes have changed dramatically.

It is too early to talk of a Trump doctrine and it seems doubtful that such a body of principles could emerge from a new president known to be impetuous and a counter-puncher who reacts to circumstances. But the evident lack of coherence in US foreign policy and the resulting danger of unforeseen and unintend ed consequences are of concern to many observers.

Even though small Caribbean countries come under the American protective umbrella because of their geographical location, it is sobering that Hawaii, which would be in the path of a North Korean strike on the US west coast, is reviewing its emergency preparedness plans to protect its citizens.

The world must hope that the current sabre-rattling will be contained to just that. The spread of nuclear weapons to rogue states - and possibly into the hands of terrorist groups - must be stopped. So President Trump’s tough stance, short of all-out war, has been widely welcomed as an attempt to prevent any use of nuclear weapons which would result in death and destruction on a cataclysmic scale.

Surprise general election in Britain

THIS WEEK’S sudden announcement by Prime Minister Theresa May that a snap general election will be held in Britain on June 8 caught most people unawares.

It was a massive surprise because previously she had made it clear that she had no intention of calling such an election. Her unexpected change of mind was reportedly kept within a close circle of parliamentary colleagues who, no doubt, had been pressing her to go to the country while the weakened opposition Labour party was in deep disarray.

Although Britain has had more national polls than usual during the last few years, it seems that another election has been called because Mrs May wants a mandate to give her a stronger hand in the forthcoming negotiations with Brussels to settle the terms of the nation’s departure from the European Union (EU).

She has made it clear that, with a working majority of only 17 in a legislature of 650 seats, her government needs greater certainty and stability in order to be in a position to fight for the best possible ‘Brexit’ deal and shape the country’s future. The latest polls give her a substantial lead which could result in an unassailable majority.

As we approach our own general election here, are there not lessons for us when we watch the order and integrity displayed by politicians in the same Westminster system of government as we follow here?

We are reminded again of the decent, honest and responsible example of Mrs May’s predecessor, David Cameron, who resigned immediately after losing last year’s British referendum on the nation’s future relationship with the EU, while our own leader refused to do likewise after losing not one but two referenda.

And is it too much to hope that we in our small country can produce the sort of politician showing the same type of firm and principled leadership as Mrs May who, after being chosen as leader by her own party colleagues less than a year ago, has now called a general election in order to revalidate and strengthen her position as Prime Minster?

Moreover, at the time of the EU referendum she was apparently a ‘Remainer’ but, since taking office, she has acted vigorously to honour the result of the referendum and reflect the will of the British people in ensuring that ‘Brexit’ happens. Seen from afar, this seems to be leadership and integrity of the highest order and we trust that our own politicians will take note.