Connect with us

Features

The Rise of the Most Powerful Woman in North Korea

Published

on

Kim Yo Jong

When the most powerful woman in North Korea declared earlier this week, with surgical clarity, that her nation would not return to dialogue with South Korea and would now only engage the United States on the basis of recognition as a de facto nuclear power, the geopolitical reverberations were profound. On the surface, it was a defiant reaffirmation of Pyongyang’s traditional posture. But beneath the steel language lay a significant ideological repositioning — not only in military terms, but in the very architecture of power within the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Kim Yo Jong, long educated in Switzerland alongside her brother, the current Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un, is no mere figurehead or ceremonial consort to dynastic politics. Her emergence as the regime’s primary spokesperson, strategist, and steward of military-diplomatic doctrine marks the first time in decades — if not ever — that such influence has been wielded openly by a female figure in one of the world’s most patriarchal societies. It is not just her words that command attention, but the authority with which they shape the DPRK’s vision of itself and its place in a world increasingly carved by new alliances and unconventional warfare.

I was recently reminded of her presence by Teguh Santosa, an Indonesian journalist of deep insight who has maintained longstanding ties with Pyongyang. I met him some time ago in Beijing, but spoke to him again this week. He recalled an encounter that now reads as a historical prelude. “I first saw her in April 2012,” he said, “during the unveiling of their father Kim Jong Il’s statue in Pyongyang. She seemed to play a vital role in ensuring the ceremony ran smoothly. She moved freely, managing every detail — from organising the elite ranks on the platform of honour to orchestrating the precise arrangement of the military formations.”

Indeed, her strategic poise today reflects that early apprenticeship. Her command over messaging is unmistakable, whether she is warning Seoul of “irreversible rupture” or framing Washington’s overtures as “only America’s wish.” Crucially, these statements were issued unprovoked — not in reaction to sanctions or military drills, but amid conciliatory gestures from South Korea’s new administration. The timing suggests not just retaliation, but design: a pre-emptive framing of future diplomatic parameters on Pyongyang’s own terms.

What makes this pivot all the more remarkable is that it coincides with North Korea’s most accelerated military evolution in decades. Recent intelligence assessments, notably those compiled by Ukraine’s HUR agency, paint a startling picture: elite North Korean troops have fought alongside Russian forces in the Ukrainian theatre. Some 4,000 have reportedly been killed or wounded — a staggering cost — yet in return, these forces have acquired practical combat experience, technological integration, and strategic training in the dynamics of modern war. They have mastered drone deployment, improved missile guidance systems, and enhanced their ability to camouflage and manoeuvre under aerial surveillance.

Such capabilities had once been theoretical or aspirational for Pyongyang. Now, under the shadow of war and forged in alliance with Moscow, they are real and tested. Military analysts believe North Korea’s KN-23 ballistic missiles have reached a new level of accuracy, drawing comparisons to Russia’s Iskander series — a troubling development for US and South Korean defence planners.

Perhaps even more unnerving is the prospect of deeper collaboration. Russia has reportedly shared technological frameworks, including those related to nuclear submarines and decoy systems for evading missile interception. Pyongyang, once isolated by choice and necessity, now emerges as a silent partner in a global triad: Russia, Iran, and North Korea — with China always watching.

But history must never be forgotten amid these alignments. For beneath the surface of military calculus lies an untold story of betrayal and blood that still casts a shadow on Northeast Asian strategy. During the Korean War, while Chinese soldiers perished by the hundreds of thousands on Korean soil — many in bitter, frozen silence — it was Joseph Stalin who emerged victorious in strategic terms. The Soviet Union, having supplied the ideological oxygen and military blueprints for the North’s invasion of the South, deftly avoided direct entanglement.

One of the most tragic episodes of that era unfolded at what is now known as P’aro-ho Lake. Originally named Dapeng Lake for its resemblance to a roc spreading its wings, the reservoir became a site of staggering carnage in May 1951. The 6th Infantry Division of the South Korean Army, under Brigadier General Jang Do-young, decimated the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army’s 63rd Army. In what South Korean sources describe as a modern-day “Sasu Victory,” an estimated 20,000 Chinese soldiers were killed and over 2,600 captured. The bodies of the fallen were buried not with ceremony but by machinery — pushed into the lakebed to be consumed by water. The lake, some claim, turned red. When Syngman Rhee later visited the site, he renamed it “Porok” — a symbol of defeating the so-called barbarians.

This trauma, while rarely acknowledged in Chinese or North Korean discourse, has left a residual legacy in the strategic calculus of both states. The Chinese bled, and Stalin triumphed. It is a bitter history — one that may explain why Pyongyang today, under the stewardship of its most influential woman, turns not to Beijing, but to Moscow, with an almost transactional clarity. Russia gives what North Korea desires: weapons technology, battlefield experience, and diplomatic recognition — not lectures, not conditional aid.

The ideological core of the regime remains unchanged: sovereignty, security, and survival. Yet the way it navigates its external relationships has evolved dramatically. The United States, still operating on the outdated assumption that denuclearisation can be negotiated, may soon find itself playing catch-up in a theatre it no longer understands. Pyongyang does not seek dialogue; it seeks recognition. Not as a rogue state, but as a legitimate nuclear power with global alliances, economic adaptability, and battlefield credentials.

And guiding much of this recalibrated worldview is a woman — discreet yet indomitable, shaped by Western schooling yet fluent in the dialectics of Juche ideology and realist geopolitics. Her rise marks a new era in North Korean politics. Not a softening, but a sharpening. Not liberalisation, but strategic modernisation. She may not speak often, but when she does, the world would do well to listen.

This is not merely a dynastic reshuffle, nor a symbolic gesture towards gender progress. It is, quite possibly, the most radical internal development within the DPRK in half a century — one that fuses nuclear ambition, historical grievance, and feminine authority into a uniquely potent force. The implications are too significant to ignore.

The bottom line: history in this region moves slowly — but when it turns, it turns with thunder. The rise of the most powerful woman in Pyongyang, Kim Yo Jong, if sustained, is not merely potent — it is the signal of that turning.

by Nilantha Ilangmauwa ✍️

 



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

The Digital Pulse: How AI is redefining health care in Sri Lanka?

Published

on

A quiet yet profound shift is underway in American healthcare, and its implications extend far beyond the United States’ borders. A recent Associated Press report describes a scene that would have seemed improbable, even five years ago: a woman in Texas, experiencing side effects from a weightloss injection, does not call her doctor, visit a clinic, or even search Google. Instead, she opens her phone and consults ChatGPT. She tells the system how she feels, describes her symptoms, and receives an instant explanation. This behaviour, once the domain of early adopters and technology enthusiasts, has now entered the mainstream. A West Health–Gallup poll confirms that nearly onequarter of American adults used an AI tool for health information or advice in the previous month. For a country with one of the world’s most expensive and fragmented healthcare systems, this shift is not merely a technological curiosity. It is a sign of the public searching for speed, clarity, and affordability in a system that often fails to provide any of these.

Sri Lanka, though vastly different in scale, culture, and resources, is not insulated from this global transformation. If anything, the pressures that drive Americans toward AI—long wait times, high costs, difficulty accessing specialists—are even more acute in our own health system. The difference is that Sri Lanka is only beginning to experience the cultural and institutional adjustments that accompany widespread AI use. Yet the trajectory is unmistakable. What is happening in the United States today is almost certainly a preview of what will happen here tomorrow in Sri Lanka, though in a form shaped by our own social realities, linguistic diversity, and healthcare traditions.

The American experience shows that AI is becoming the new gateway to health information. As Dr. Karandeep Singh of UC San Diego observes, AI tools now function as an improved version of the old Google search. Instead of sifting through dozens of links, users receive a concise, conversational summary tailored to their question. This is precisely the kind of convenience that Sri Lankans, too, will find irresistible. In a country where a single specialist appointment can require hours of travel, waiting, and uncertainty, the appeal of an instant, alwaysavailable digital assistant is obvious. The idea that one could ask a question about a rash, a fever, a medication side effect, or a lab report and receive an immediate explanation—without navigating hospital queues or private consultation fees—will inevitably attract public interest. For example, one of my friends, who was with me in school, called me and said he is prescribed Linavic, a drug for type 2 diabetes. I told him that, as it is not widely known in the USA, to give me the generic name. He searched ChatGPT and told me it is called Tradjenta, which is widely available in the USA as a prescription drug for type 2 diabetes.

But Sri Lanka’s path will not be identical to America’s. Our adoption of AI in healthcare is emerging through institutions rather than individuals. Nawaloka Hospitals has already introduced AI-powered chatbots, including NASHA, an OPD assistant capable of guiding patients through symptom assessment and basic triage. This is a significant development because it signals that Sri Lankan hospitals are preparing for a future in which AI is not an optional addon but a core part of patient interaction. The government’s draft National AI Strategy reinforces this direction by identifying healthcare as a priority sector and emphasising responsible, transparent, and safe deployment. Academic bodies, such as the Sri Lanka Medical Association, have also begun training clinicians to understand and work alongside AI systems. These are early but important steps, suggesting that Sri Lanka is building the professional ecosystem needed for safe AI integration.

  Yet, the public’s relationship with AI remains limited. Unlike in the United States, where consumers independently experiment with tools like ChatGPT, Sri Lankans tend to rely on doctors as the primary source of authority. Digital literacy varies widely, especially outside urban centres. Sinhala and Tamilcapable AI tools are still developing. And our society has a long history of health misinformation spreading rapidly through social media, from miracle cures to conspiracy theories. Without careful regulation and public education, AI could amplify these risks rather than reduce them. The danger is not that AI will replace doctors, but that poorly informed users may treat AI outputs as definitive diagnoses, bypassing professional care when it is urgently needed.

At the same time, Sri Lankans’ lived experiences reveal why AI will inevitably become part of the healthseeking landscape. Anyone who has visited the outpatient department of a major government hospital knows the reality: queues forming before dawn, patients clutching files and prescriptions, and overworked medical officers trying to see hundreds of cases in a single shift. In rural areas, the situation is even more challenging. A villager in Monaragala or Mullaitivu may have to travel hours to see a specialist, often relying on neighbours or family for transport. Many postpone care simply because they are unsure whether a symptom is serious enough to justify the journey. For such individuals, an AI-based triage tool—available on a basic smartphone, in Sinhala or Tamil—could be transformative. It could help them decide whether to seek immediate care, wait for the next clinic day, or manage the issue at home.

  Sri Lanka’s private healthcare sector, too, is ripe for AI integration. Private hospitals are increasingly turning to digital systems for appointment scheduling, lab report delivery, and patient communication. Anyone who has waited for hours at a private OPD, despite having an appointment, knows the frustration. AI-driven systems could help streamline patient flow, predict peak times, and reduce bottlenecks. They could also assist doctors by summarising patient histories, flagging potential drug interactions, and providing evidencebased guidelines. For patients, AI could offer explanations of lab results in simple language, reducing anxiety and improving understanding.

There are already glimpses of this future. Some Sri Lankan patients, especially younger urban professionals, quietly admit that they use AI tools to interpret their blood tests before seeing a doctor.

Others use AI to understand the side effects of medications prescribed to them. Parents use AI to check whether a child’s fever pattern is typical or concerning. Migrant workers, returning home for short visits, use AI to prepare questions for their doctors, ensuring they make the most of limited consultation time. These behaviours mirror the early stages of the American trend, though on a smaller scale.

Sri Lanka’s cultural context will shape how AI is used. Our society places great trust in doctors, often viewing them as authoritative figures whose word should not be questioned. This trust is a strength, but it can also discourage patients from seeking information independently. AI has the potential to shift this dynamic—not by undermining doctors, but by empowering patients to participate more actively in their own care. A patient who understands their condition is better able to follow treatment plans, ask relevant questions, and recognise warning signs. AI can support this empowerment, provided it is used responsibly.

The deeper question is not whether Sri Lanka will adopt AI in healthcare, but how. The American example shows both the promise and the peril. AI can democratise access to information, reduce anxiety, and empower patients. But it can also mislead, oversimplify, or create false confidence. The challenge for Sri Lanka is to build a culture of responsible use—one that recognises AI as a tool, not a substitute for clinical judgment. Hospitals must ensure accuracy and transparency. Regulators must set standards. And the public must learn to treat AI as a guide, not a guru.

 Sri Lanka has an opportunity to leapfrog. By studying the American experience, we can avoid its pitfalls and adopt its strengths. We can design AI systems that respect our linguistic diversity, our cultural habits, and our healthcare realities. We can integrate AI into hospitals in ways that enhance, rather than erode, the doctor-patient relationship. And we can prepare our citizens to use these tools wisely, with curiosity but also with caution.

The transformation is already underway. It will accelerate whether we prepare for it or not. The question for Sri Lanka is whether we will shape this future deliberately or allow it to shape us by default. The American shift toward AImediated healthcare is a reminder that technology does not wait for societies to catch up. It moves forward, and nations must decide whether to follow passively or lead thoughtfully. Sri Lanka, with its strong public health tradition and growing technological ambition, has every reason to choose the latter.

by Prof Amarasiri de Silva

Continue Reading

Features

Not a dog barked

Published

on

I began running on the beach after a fall on a broken pavement left me with a head injury and a surgically repaired eyebrow. Mount Lavinia beach, world‑famous and crowded, especially on Sundays, is only a seven‑minute walk from home, so it became the obvious place for my rehabilitation jogs.

On my first day, my wife, a true Mount Lavinia girl, accompanied me. Though we’ve been married for over 40 years, this was the first time I had ever jogged on the beach. She practically shepherded me there and watched from a safe distance as I made my way towards the Wellawatte breakwater. Dogs were everywhere: some strays, some with collars. I’m not usually afraid of dogs, so I ran past them confidently. Then one fellow barked sharply, making me stop. He advanced even after I stood still. I bent down, picked up some sand, and only then did he retreat, still protesting loudly. On my return run, he repeated the performance.

The next time, I carried a stick. The beach was quiet, perhaps my friend had taken the day off. But on the third day he was back, barking as usual. I showed him the stick and continued. Further along, more dogs barked, and I repeated the ritual. Soon I found myself growing jittery, even numb, whenever I approached a dog. Jogging was no longer comfortable.

My elder daughter, an ardent animal lover who keeps two dogs and wanting to have more, suggested bribery, specifically, biscuits. So, on my next run, I filled my pocket with them. When the usual culprit appeared, I tossed him a biscuit before he could bark. He sniffed suspiciously, then ate it. I jogged on. The rest of the “orchestra” received similar treatment and promptly forgot to bark. Not a dog barked the entire run, or on my way back.

Some groups had five or six dogs, but bribing the noisiest one was enough to quieten the rest. Soon they grew used to me running close to them, and the biscuits made me a trusted friend. These round little sugary crackers turned out to be the perfect currency for seemingly aggressive but essentially harmless dogs, a fact well known to my daughter, Dr. Honda Hitha, but a revelation to me.

One day, a friendly dog decided to escort me home. After receiving his biscuit, he lingered near our gate before returning to the beach. Over time, the number of escorts grew until I found myself flanked by about 10 canine disciples. They became my strength instead of a source of fear. They were darlings. Unlike humans, their affection, even if won initially with biscuits, soon became unconditional.

They still accompany me home, whether or not they receive a treat. Bless them! May they be born human in their next lives, perhaps the only way our wicked world can become a better place.

by Dr. M. M. Janapriya

Continue Reading

Features

It’s Israel and US that need a regime change

Published

on

Netanyahu and Trump

If there is one country that urgently needs a regime change it is Israel. The whole world is suffering and thousands of people, including children and women, are dying due to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival strategy. He needs the war to avoid going to jail and also certain defeat at the next elections. The corruption and other charges against him, if proved, would send him to jail. He had asked the Israel President for a pardon and his friend Trump also has written to the President, on his behalf.

Netanyahu is able to commit genocide in Gaza with impunity because the US backs him to the hilt, economically, politically, militarily and also in the United Nations. Without all this, Israel will not be able to fight its many wars and pursue its “Greater Israel” project in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and also weaken the countries that oppose its grand plan, such as Iran, Yemen and Turkey. The US gives military aid to Israel, worth USD 3.8 bn, annually, which is used in these genocidal wars and expansionist projects. The US is, therefore, complicit in all these war crimes.

US presidents, beginning from Eisenhower (1950) to Joe Biden (2022), expressed displeasure at Israeli aggression. Ronald Reagan halted the shipment of cluster artillery shells, in 1982, over concerns about their use against civilians in Lebanon, and delayed the delivery of F-16 warplanes until Israel withdrew from Lebanon. George H.W. Bush (1990s) postponed $10 billion in loan guarantees in 1991 to pressure Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank and to attend the Madrid peace conference. Barack Obama  frequently criticised Israeli settlement expansion and, in the final days of his term, withheld a US UN Security Council veto on a resolution regarding settlements. Joe Biden (2020s) threatened to withhold military aid if Israel launched a major offensive in Rafah during the 2024 conflict in Gaza, pausing a shipment of heavy bombs. Most of these presidents had been in favour of the two state solution for the Palestine problem as well.

Trump abandoned these longstanding US policies on Israel that were upheld by Obama and later restored by Biden. Significant and far-reaching changes, included recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital,  moving the embassy, declaring settlements not inherently illegal, and recognising Golan Heights, which belonged to Syria, as part of Israel sovereignty. These evil deeds of Trump seem to have boomeranged on him as he battles to extricate himself from a war forced on him by Israel, which has resulted in enormous economic and political, not to mention military, losses for the US and Trump. Consequently Israel, in the eyes of many leading political commentators, is now a liability for the US.

   How this war was started reveals the dastardly and barbaric mentality of Netanyahu and Trump. The US and Iran were engaged in negotiations, with the mediation of Oman, to resolve their differences, and on 26 February, 2026, the Foreign Minister of Iran stated that a historical agreement with the US was about to be entered into and, the following day, Oman corroborated this announcement. Iran apparently had agreed that its nuclear programme could be brought under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Surprisingly on 28 February, 2026, Israel and the US attacked Iran, Trump saying that it posed a nuclear threat to the US! Oman said it was “dismayed” and the Iranian Foreign Minister said it was a “betrayal”. Obviously, Trump, who is under obligation to the Jewish lobby, which had funded his election campaign, had been drawn into the war. The Epstein files issue may have pushed Trump across the threshold. Iran’s response was calculated and appropriate. Trump says he will obliterate the Iranian civilisation in one night but soon agrees to have negotiations with Iran, in Islamabad.

However, Netanyahu cannot afford an end to the war he started to save his own skin. He goes ahead and drops 100 bombs in 10 minutes on Lebanon, killing 254 civilians, including children. The massacre in Lebanon continues with Israel pushing towards the Litani river in an attempt to annex southern Lebanon. Israel disqualifies itself not only as a reliable ally but also as an honourable member of the world community by having leaders of the calibre of Netanyahu. Israel is fast becoming internationally isolated, according to experts like Professors Robert Pape, John Measheimier, Richard Wolff, Jeffrey Sachs and Yanis Varonfakis. And these experts are of the view that if Israel continues its aggressive approach and expansionist policy, disregarding the historical facts of its origin and the Palestine problem, it will implode and destroy itself.

Israel must face the reality that Iran has emerged stronger after the war and may have control over the Strait of Hormuz and may even force the US out of the region. Israel, under Netanyahu, may not be willing to acknowledge these facts, but the people in the US must realise that it is not in their national interests to have Israel as an indispensable ally. This war is very unpopular in the US not entirely due to the economic impact but the extremely atrocious way it has been prosecuted by Israel  and also the equally horrendous threats made by the US against Iran. It is also very unpopular among the US allies who bluntly refused to join or even approve it. Australia, Japan and South Korea, though far removed from the theatre of war, seem to be pretty angry about the whole thing, as they are badly affected by the economic impact of the war. They may be concerned about the brutality of Israel, and the degree of support and approval it gets from the US.

Those who have significantly gained from the war may be Russia who could have a windfall on their oil sales, and China who could quietly weave its diplomatic network throughout the Middle East and watch the decline of US influence in the region. Saudi Arabia and UAE, two countries bombed by Iran, have already started a dialogue with Iran. These developments may hasten the emergence of the new world order, spearheaded by China.

The war, that was started by Netanyahu, with a willing Trump, seems to have backfired on them, with both facing a hostile world and a fast changing geopolitical global situation. Trump’s MAGA project was aimed at quelling the growth of the new world order that had China and Russia at the head. He attempted to hit Russia with sanctions but failed. He tried to curb China with tariffs but failed. Denying oil supplies to China was attempted by kidnapping the Venezuelan President. China’s monopoly on rare earth minerals was a headache to Trump and he proposes to annex Canada and Greenland which have rich deposits of these elements. War on Iran was another opportunity to do a regime change and get control over that country and its oil. He threatened to wipe out Iran saying that “the civilization would die tomorrow night”, only a psychopathic megalomaniac could make such utterances , not a president of the US. Fortunately, the changing world order would not allow Trump to achieve any of his crazy goals.

Netanyahu inadvertently may have hastened his own downfall by starting a war without realising that the global geopolitics have changed and he cannot have his way even with the full backing of Trump. Both Israel and the US need a regime change if the world is to have peace.

 by N. A. de S. Amaratunga

Continue Reading

Trending