Latest news with #Communist
Miami Herald
3 hours ago
- Politics
- Miami Herald
US's NATO and Pacific Allies Sail Warships Near China's Coast
The United Kingdom and Japan-United States allies in NATO and the Pacific respectively-have sent naval ships through the Taiwan Strait, which China has long claimed sovereignty over. Regarding the passage of the British patrol vessel HMS Spey on Wednesday, the Chinese military described it as "undermining peace and stability" across the 110-mile-wide waterway. Newsweek has emailed the Chinese and Japanese defense ministries for further comment. Communist China has declared its "sovereignty, sovereign rights, and jurisdiction" over the Taiwan Strait, which separates its territory from Taiwan and connects two contested seas-the East China Sea and the South China Sea-making it a strategic waterway. Despite never having ruled Taiwan-a security partner of the U.S.-the Communist regime in Beijing has long claimed the self-governed, democratic island as one of its provinces. Xi Jinping, leader of China, has vowed to use force to achieve "reunification," if necessary. As military tensions between China and Taiwan have grown in recent years, the U.S. and its allies and partners have frequently conducted naval and aerial passages through the Taiwan Strait, asserting freedoms of navigation and overflight in accordance with international law. The Spey-a Royal Navy vessel deployed to the Indo-Pacific region-navigated the Taiwan Strait, according to Taiwanese media citing the British Office in Taipei. Prior to the transit, the ship conducted joint patrols in the East China Sea with the U.S. Coast Guard. The British Office stated that the passage was conducted in accordance with the rights granted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Taiwan's Foreign Ministry said the transit reaffirmed the strait's status as what it calls "international waters." The Chinese military's Eastern Theater Command, which oversees military affairs related to Taiwan, confirmed the Spey's transit in a statement on Friday. It claimed its units tracked and monitored the ship in the Taiwan Strait, handling the situation "effectively." This was not the first time a British warship has sailed through the Taiwan Strait. In September 2021, the frigate HMS Richmond-deployed to the western Pacific with an aircraft carrier group-transited the waterway en route to Vietnam after operating in the East China Sea. Meanwhile, Japanese destroyer JS Takanami passed southward through the Taiwan Strait on June 12, Japanese media reported on Thursday, citing unspecified "diplomatic sources." The transit, which was tracked and monitored by the Chinese military, lasted over 10 hours, according to the report. The Japanese warship entered the strait from the East China Sea and proceeded to the Philippines, where it conducted a drill in the South China Sea on June 14. While the Japanese government does not officially acknowledge naval transits through the Taiwan Strait, the June 12 transit marked the third known passage by Japan's navy. The previous two occurred in September last year and February this year, the report added. The British Office in Taipei told Taiwanese media on Thursday: "Wherever the Royal Navy operates, it does so in full compliance with international law and exercises its right to freedom of navigation and overflight provided by [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea]." The Taiwanese Foreign Ministry said in a statement on Thursday: "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs encourages like-minded countries such as the United Kingdom to jointly defend peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, promote a free and open Indo-Pacific, and maintain a rules-based international order." Senior Captain Liu Runke, navy spokesperson for the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Eastern Theater Command, said in a statement on Friday: "The troops of the PLA Eastern Theater Command will remain on high alert at all times and resolutely counter all threats and provocations." It remains to be seen whether other U.S. allies and partners-both within and beyond the Pacific-will deploy warships to the Taiwan Strait, as China continues to maintain a persistent military presence around Taiwan. Related Articles European Ministers Set For Nuclear Talks With Iranians This WeekThe Vicious Campaign Against Meghan Markle Must End | OpinionRussia Accuses UK of Sabotage Plans With US in 'NATO Lake'US and NATO Ally Patrol Waters Near China 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Voice of America's foreign language services are vital to global peace
The Trump administration has hopefully just learned an important lesson: the strategic importance of Voice of America's foreign language services for U.S. national security. After Israel launched a full-scale war against Iran — presenting an immediate threat to American troops and vital national interests in the Middle East — Trump officials recalled back to work some VOA Persian Service journalists and broadcasters who had been put on paid administrative leave and threatened with termination. A few months before Israel's attack to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons capabilities, Trump issued an executive order, at the suggestion of Elon Musk, to scale down the broadcasting services of the U.S. Agency for Global Media to the statutory minimum. Kari Lake, Trump's advisor at USAGM, may have wanted to save more of VOA's foreign language services and broadcasting jobs, but she faithfully carried out the president's orders by proposing to reduce staffing of some key foreign language services, including the Persian Service, to just a couple of web journalists for just a few countries. I managed the VOA Polish Service when it expanded its audience and contributed to bringing a peaceful end to Communism and Russian colonialism in Poland during the Reagan administration. I sent a message advising Lake that VOA cannot handle international emergencies with only a few journalists fluent in foreign languages. When the Communist regime in Poland declared martial law in 1981, VOA's Polish Service had 15 full-time employees. We increased our broadcasts from two-and-a-half to seven hours daily almost overnight by hiring temporary help and slowly growing our staff to 25 full-time positions. We did not start from nothing or just two broadcasters. At the same time, Radio Free Europe's Polish Service, also funded by U.S. tax dollars, had over 100 employees and many more hours of daily radio broadcasts to Poland. The two outlets helped to eliminate the Warsaw Pact's military threat to America and brought democracy to the region while avoiding war and violence. Few Americans know that one of the main reasons for starting the VOA Russian Service in 1947 (and Radio Liberty soon after that) was to convince the Russians that the U.S. did not want war and would never first use nuclear weapons against Russia. We needed a communication channel in case of an emergency as well as a tool for countering disinformation. Fortunately, when the latest war in the Middle East started, full-time VOA Persian Service employees were still on paid administrative leave. They could return to work immediately after the Israeli strikes in Iran. That would not have been possible, had they already lost their jobs, as they would have soon under the Trump administration's plan — and America would have been left without a critical strategic national security asset. With Musk out of the picture (at least for now), and with the growing crisis in the Middle East, it is time for Trump officials and members of Congress from both parties to work out a reasonable plan to save and reform Voice of America. However, I do not favor returning the Agency for Global Media to its previous state. Under the influence of Obama and Biden officials, it has become one of the most bloated bureaucracies in the federal government. USAGM's former leadership hired journalists who engaged in partisan news reporting, allowed a reporter to accompany Biden as his guest to an official ceremony and recruited a Russian freelancer, ignoring signs he was a Russian spy. They created a work environment in which several VOA journalists felt free to post on their social media accounts 'death to Israel' and 'f*ck Trump' memes. These partisan executives have already resigned or retired. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has launched an investigation into charges that former USAGM officials 'routinely and improperly utilized visa programs to employ poorly vetted foreign nationals, including from nations adverse to' the U.S. and awarded grants to entities 'despite major conflicts of interest.' But those journalists in VOA's foreign language services who did nothing wrong should not be punished for the sins of their former bosses. American citizens and permanent residents are more easily vetted and should always have priority in hiring over individuals residing abroad. Although he was appointed during the Biden administration, VOA Director Michael Abramowitz, who remains on paid leave, had taken steps to curb partisan excesses of some VOA English news service reporters while increasing support for the work of the best and most critical VOA foreign language services. Abramowitz, a former head of Freedom House, is the first VOA director in a long time who understands the crucial role of foreign language broadcasting. I have always believed that it isn't a bad idea to have a competent leader at VOA who is from the opposite party from the one in the White House. This could help prevent partisan bias, although such an arrangement is unlikely in the current political environment. While reducing the Voice of America to a few journalists is a wholly unworkable proposition, shrinking the USAGM bureaucracy to just a few people and combining its media operations to avoid duplication is an excellent idea that would save millions of dollars — which then can be used for broadcasts to Iran, China, Tibet, Russia, Cuba, North Korea and a few other countries. Partisan reporting at Voice of America primarily occurred in the VOA English newsroom rather than in the foreign language services. VOA English newsroom reporters and editors were the ones who, at first, did not report that Biden's performance at his pre-election debate with Trump was in any way diminished. Some VOA English reporters refused to call Hamas 'terrorists' after the Oct. 7, 2023 attack. By law, VOA cannot duplicate the work of private media, and there is no major English-speaking foreign country that threatened the U.S. or lacks a free press. Voice of America does not require a large team of journalists to prepare news reports in English that duplicate the work of CNN, The New York Times or Fox News. A small team producing a roundup of American news from multiple sources without ideological censorship is more than sufficient. What VOA needs are foreign language services that use the best technology to deliver uncensored news otherwise unavailable from private outlets to countries that may pose a threat to America's security and to international peace. Congress and the Trump administration should preserve VOA to help prevent the U.S. from becoming entangled in foreign wars. Ted Lipien was Voice of America's Polish service chief during Poland's struggle for democracy and VOA's acting associate director. He served from 2020 to 2021 as the president of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
The Hill
a day ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Chinese leaders have a long history of strategic deception
In September 2015, President Xi Jinping stood in the Rose Garden next to President Barack Obama and made an unambiguous commitment: China had 'no intention to militarize' the artificial islands it was building in the South China Sea. The statement carried the solemn authority of a great power — a promise between world leaders, witnessed by the international community. Yet within three years, satellite imagery revealed military-grade airstrips stretching across previously submerged reefs. Hardened missile shelters dotted landscapes that had once been underwater and advanced radar installations scanned surrounding seas. The 'civilian outposts' had transformed into forward military bases projecting power across one of the world's most critical waterways. This dramatic reversal, from public commitment to calculated breach, exemplifies a pattern that has defined China's international relations for seven decades. The Chinese Communist Party has perfected strategic deception — the art of making promises it never intends to keep when the calculus favors breaking them. This isn't merely diplomatic inconsistency but a deliberate strategy that has yielded extraordinary dividends across decades of patient execution. As the Trump administration resumes trade talks with China, American representatives would do well to keep this history in mind. The seeds were planted during China's civil war, when the Communist Party's survival depended on strategic misrepresentation. In the 1940s, Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai presented themselves to U.S. diplomats not as hardened revolutionaries but as moderate 'agrarian reformers' seeking democratic change. This calculated deception yielded tangible benefits: diminished American support for the Nationalists and, ultimately, a Communist victory in 1949. The pattern continued with deadly consequences just a year later. As American forces approached the Chinese border during the Korean War, Beijing repeatedly assured the world it would not intervene — right until hundreds of thousands of 'volunteer' soldiers poured across the Yalu River in a massive surprise offensive. The resulting conflict cost millions of lives and cemented the Cold War division of Asia that persists to this day. By the 1970s, as geopolitical calculations shifted, party leaders recognized the value of rapprochement with the U.S. During President Richard Nixon's landmark visit, Mao and Zhou downplayed their revolutionary ideology and the ongoing brutality of the Cultural Revolution, strategically masking their domestic repression to secure diplomatic recognition and economic benefits. China also signed the Sino-U.K. Joint Declaration on Hong Kong in 1984, promising to keep the status quo for 50 years — before violating that agreement when the Communist Party cracked down on protests in 2019. By the late 1980s, China had learned that Americans suffer from political amnesia. By offering the appearance of cooperation and reform today, they could make Americans forget the deceptions of yesterday. This approach produced remarkable dividends. Within a decade, Western companies were investing billions in China, transferring technology and expertise that would become the foundation for China's economic miracle. The 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre briefly disrupted this process, but Western businesses soon returned, teaching Chinese leaders that the consequences of broken promises are temporary, while the benefits often prove permanent. This pattern has been most consequential in China's accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. Chinese negotiators made expansive commitments to market reforms, intellectual property protection and non-discriminatory treatment of foreign companies. Western leaders, intoxicated by the vision of accessing a billion consumers, convinced themselves that economic liberalization would inevitably lead to political openness. 'The leadership has concluded that their country would be better off with more competition, more rule of law, and more contact with the rest of the world,' declared President Bill Clinton. 'They believe that if they open their economy, they inevitably open their society.' Two decades later, the reality stands in sharp contrast. China has implemented its WTO commitments selectively, engaging in large-scale industrial policy and restricting market access when it serves domestic priorities. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative estimates that U.S. companies lose between $225 billion and $600 billion annually to Chinese intellectual property theft. Millions of American jobs have been lost to China, which dominates global manufacturing. Yet this hasn't deterred American policymakers from signing more unenforceable deals with Beijing, as when China pledged to President Trump to increase purchases of U.S. manufactured goods during 2020 and 2021 — failing to honor its commitment a year into the agreement. This pattern found yet another expression during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite international commitments, Chinese officials delayed informing the World Health Organization about human-to-human transmission, silenced whistleblowers and restricted information-sharing. China, while implementing strict containment domestically, simultaneously opposed international travel restrictions and pressured against declaring a global emergency. Once again, a commitment to international norms — in this case, obligations under International Health Regulations — was subordinated to domestic political imperatives. Understanding this pattern requires seeing the strategic logic behind it. As a Leninist party-state primarily committed to self-preservation, the Chinese Communist Party approaches international commitments instrumentally, evaluating them on the sole basis of utility. The 'century of humiliation' trained Chinese leaders to distrust outsiders and use deception when necessary. As Deng Xiaoping put it in a famous speech, 'hide capacity and bide time.' Moreover, China has learned that the costs of breaking its commitments are often low. International outrage fades, economic penalties are absorbed by a massive domestic market and Western companies and governments — driven by greed or naivete — remain eager to access Chinese consumers despite repeated disappointments. The Chinese Communist Party has mastered what might be called the 'liar's dividend': violating commitments often carries fewer costs than honoring them, especially when enforcement mechanisms are weak and other parties have short memories. Understanding this pattern doesn't mean abandoning engagement with China, it means approaching engagement with clear-eyed realism. Future agreements must include robust verification mechanisms, specific timelines and meaningful safeguards lifted upon compliance. American policymakers must also recognize their own role in enabling this pattern by repeatedly downplaying violations in pursuit of market access. Breaking this cycle requires institutional memory and consistent enforcement across administrations. Perhaps most importantly, U.S. strategy must acknowledge that some aspects of the Chinese system are inherently incompatible with many international norms. No amount of diplomatic pressure will convince the Chinese Communist Party to embrace values that threaten its monopoly on power. Rather than expecting transformative change through engagement, U.S. policy should focus on specific, verifiable actions that serve mutual interests, particularly amidst competition between the two great powers. After seven decades of strategic commitment-breaking, perhaps the most dangerous illusion is the belief that the next Chinese promise will somehow be different. As American representatives negotiate trade with Beijing, they would do well to secure not just the 'best' trade deal for the U.S., but one that accounts for the possibility of deception. Mathis Bitton is a Ph.D. candidate in government at Harvard University studying Chinese historical thought. George Yean is a Ph.D. candidate at Harvard studying Sino-U.S. trade relations.
Hindustan Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
The Emergency and its external dimension
The pain inflicted by the 21-month Emergency rule in India on its body politic and its people continues to hurt even after 50 years. The domestic dimensions of the Emergency have been discussed at length. A recent study by Srinath Raghavan ably explores its structural dimensions – of the gradual evolution of a powerful executive, creeping encroachments on freedoms and rights and authoritarian tendencies of governance — that have been building for long. However, Indira Gandhi's oft repeated allegations about the role of 'foreign hand' (of the United States of America) in destabilising her government have often skipped rigorous scrutiny. Her political opponents, many media commentators, and even serious historians like Ramchandra Guha and Bipin Chandra have dismissed these allegations in want of hard, concrete evidence, as a pretext to justify her authoritarian streak. This was also the position of the various US official organs, as expected. The prevailing intellectual narrative clearly underlines that transformational changes in developing countries result from a conscious or coincidental coalition of domestic and external forces. Over the years, many new archives have opened and the present ruling dispensation in New Delhi has brought the issue back to the forefront of India's political dynamics. The narrative of the US pushing Indira Gandhi towards the Emergency decision and supporting the peoples' uprising against its repressive regime deserve a second dispassionate look. This may be done at three levels. First, regime change, through covert as well as overt means, against Communist/ socialist or Left-oriented governments in Latin America (Chile) and Asia (Iran) has been an integral part of the toolkit of US policy since the Cold War years. According to American scholar Lindsey O'Rourke, the US carried out 64 covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989. Another scholar, David S Levins (2020), claims that the US carried out the largest number of foreign electoral interventions during 1946-2000. The use of covert operations for regime change in developing countries brought about extensive criticism of the US's democratic credentials, forcing the US Congress to appoint The Church Committee to investigate the matter. In its report in 1976, this Committee came down heavily on CIA operations and blamed it for having a worldwide network of several hundred individuals to have access 'to a large number of news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial publishers and media outlets' for covert operations. Secondly, at the regional level in South Asia, the US National Security Council's policy document, NSC 98/1, was adopted by President Truman in January 1951. It asked US policy in the region to take 'more frequently accept calculated risks' in ensuring that the Communist (as also, socialist and Communist supported) governments did not remain in power. Only such governments were acceptable that 'would assist the United States and its allies to obtain the facilities desired in the time of peace or required in the event of war'. The Nixon (1969-1974)-Kissinger (1969-1977) team of the US had a strong focus on South Asian regimes in its endeavour to cultivate China and isolate the Soviet Union. Between 1975 and 1977, major developments took place in South Asia. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (1975) in Bangladesh and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1977) in Pakistan were deposed brutally by military regimes. Sheikh Mujib's Bangladesh in 1971 had emerged in strategic defiance of the US, and Bhutto had defied the US on the nuclear issue. Bhutto's daughter, Benazir, was reported to have disclosed Kissinger's threat in November 1976 to Bhutto to make a horrible example of him if he pursued the nuclear path. Nepal (Zone of Peace, 1975) and Sikkim (the American queen of the Chogyal sponsored independent status, 1974-75) had explicit support from the US so as to distance them from India. Lastly, at the bilateral level, Indira Gandhi's 'foreign hand' paranoia was a reflection of these regional developments. She had the worst of relations with the Nixon-Kissinger team both on the Bangladesh (1971) and the nuclear (implosion, 1974) issues. It was problematic for the US establishment that Indira Gandhi, whom the CIA supported in dethroning the Communist regime in Kerala in late 1950s, was during 1967-69, leaning on the Indian Communists in her struggle for power within her own party. The CIA activities during Indira Gandhi's regime had become so unacceptable even to the US embassy in New Delhi that ambassador Patrick Moynihan had to ask the state department to withdraw CIA operations. The imposition of Emergency was publicly disapproved by the US state department and American media. The US secretary of state Kissinger in his memo to President Ford in September 1975 said that the Emergency had discredited Indian democracy, adding, 'We should avoid any overt involvement that could confirm her allegations of foreign subversion'. Did this imply that covert operations to subvert the Emergency could go on? The post-Emergency regime was headed by Morarji Desai, who American journalist Seymour Hersh alleged was a CIA mole in Indira Gandhi's cabinet. Desai fought a libel case in the US against Hersh unsuccessfully. President Carter visited India in January 1978 to acclaim the post-Emergency regime, and asked Prime Minister Desai to desist from the nuclear path. Thus, there are ample leads at all the three levels to revisit the question of the 'foreign hand' and see if it had any links with the popular protests. British scholar Paul Garr in his study, Spying in South Asia (2024), says that Indira Gandhi's 'foreign hand' was an exaggeration sometimes, but her fears about the CIA were 'genuine' and valid. Our reliance only on the structural theories and Indira Gandhi's authoritarianism do not explain her decision to end the Emergency, as also how she managed to stage an impressive electoral comeback in less than three years. SD Muni is professor emeritus, JNU, former ambassador and special envoy, Government of India. The views expressed are personal.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
The unwitting poster child of the Vietnam War has forsaken bitterness for grace
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Her name is Phan Thị Kim Phúc. Advertisement When I recently found myself in the Toronto area, where Kim Phúc has lived for more than 30 years, I reached out to her. We first spoke by phone for two hours. Having been used as a propaganda figure by the Vietnamese government for years after the war, she sought asylum in Canada in 1992. In that call, she spoke with clarity about June 8, 1972, when the South Vietnamese Air Force — and not, as was and is still wrongly believed, the US Air Force — dropped napalm on her village. Advertisement Kim Phúc was 9 years old. She remembers the blast and seeing the fire and watching civilians and Vietnamese soldiers burn to death. 'I lost my future. I lost my freedom. I lost my dream. I lost my hope,' she says of that day. Even now, after years of treatment, she is still in pain. Kim Phúc did not see who took the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo of her, but she believes Nick Út captured the Pulitzer Prize-winning photo of her, despite She has identified the South Vietnamese squadron that dropped the napalm on her village, and she has spoken with living witnesses. Surviving veterans have given her a detailed timeline of the events that precipitated the bombing, for which they were ordered to clear sections of Tây Ninh province, notorious for housing Communist guerrilla fighters. They told her of their lasting shame over hitting civilians and fellow South Vietnamese soldiers as they fled a Cao Đài temple where Kim Phúc and others had been seeking refuge. But after all this time, one mystery remains. For 53 years, members of the unit have refused to reveal the name of the pilot who dropped the bomb. 'Why do you need his name?' they would say, reminding Kim Phúc that knowing it 'won't change anything.' They assured her: He feels guilty. He's in America. He became a vegetarian to atone for his sins. Advertisement While Kim Phúc respects the pilot's privacy, her greatest wish is to find him or his descendants. 'I do want to know who the pilot is — not because I'm angry,' she told me. 'I want to tell him: I survived. I forgave a long time ago. I don't hate you. I would give him a hug. He changed my life without knowing it.' She seeks neither justice nor publicity. Just a private meeting. Kim Phúc says she longs for one final opportunity for closure and, perhaps, to offer peace to someone — be it the pilot or a family member of his — who might still carry guilt. How and when did she find such equanimity? I needed to know. The morning after we spoke by phone, I joined Kim Phúc for her weekly Sunday service at Faithway Baptist Church in Ajax, an Ontario town about 45 minutes outside Toronto. Despite having been raised in the Cao Đài faith, which combines Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism, among other spiritual beliefs and practices, Kim Phúc says she finally found the solace she craved when she discovered a copy of the New Testament in Saigon's central library. Against her family's wishes, she converted to Christianity. (Years later, her parents followed her.) So there I was in mid-May, sitting in the pews beside the now 62-year-old Kim Phúc and her 91-year-old mother, Nữ, who put on headphones as her son-in-law, Kim Phúc's husband, Toàn, translated the pastor's English sermon into Vietnamese. That morning's message touched on the themes of forgiveness and restoration. Advertisement 'War makes everyone a victim,' Kim Phúc told me many times. 'Even the ones we think are strong.' Her life embodies this truth. After resettling in Canada, she channeled her suffering into purpose as a UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador and through Kim Foundation International, the nonprofit she founded in 1997 to support international projects that offer medical, living, and educational assistance to young victims of trauma. 'When I see children in war today, I feel their pain like it's mine,' she told me. 'I want to use my voice to help protect them — because I remember what it's like to be them.' When we discuss our home village — a place I've only visited and Kim Phúc's family was forced to leave as the Vietnam War raged — our connection grows. My father has told me that my uncle, Tân Thúc Hưng, a first lieutenant in the local defense forces, ate regularly at Kim Phúc's family's food stall. Over lunch after service, I asked her mother if she remembered him. 'Ông Hưng? Of course,' she said. 'He was practically family. I remember the last time I saw him. He died the next day.' That was in 1971. The details surrounding his death have never been clear to my family. We know it happened at a cantina or pool hall on the town's main street, where his duty in psychological operations was to win the hearts and minds of the people. As the story goes, the Viet Cong sent a child into the venue with a grenade disguised as something else. The explosion maimed or killed everyone present. I immediately wanted to call my dad to tell him: 'Someone else in this world remembers your beloved brother. She might have fed him his last meal.' Advertisement Meeting with Kim Phúc and her parents drove home to me the impossible choices of war: those of the South Vietnamese pilot following orders to stop Viet Cong atrocities; those of my uncle trying to protect his community; Kim Phúc's family's decision to feed even those who might kill them. Everyone was trying to survive forces beyond their control. Such fragmented memories, passed down through the generations, teach us that history lives in people — in food stalls, shared meals, and the quiet act of remembering someone loved and lost. The hard reality is that 50 years after the end of the Vietnam War, children still flee bombs across the world. We scroll past images of their suffering, numbed by the endless stream. Kim Phúc's story cuts through that numbness because she lived to tell what comes after the photograph: the choice between bitterness and grace. Now a mother and grandmother who still bears the scars of the napalm attack, she has refused to let trauma define her. While the world remembers her as the ultimate poster child of war, it's her will to forgive rather than seek vengeance that I will remember her for. She is so much more than the girl who ran from napalm and became the unwitting subject of a famous photo. Phan Thị Kim Phúc survived terror and chose inner peace.
