Latest news with #ArticleV
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In just 100 days, Trump and Hegseth have managed to make America less safe
During his inaugural address, President Trump stated, 'From this day forward, our country will flourish and be respected again all over the world.' He boasted, 'Our safety will be restored.' Those predictions could not be further from the truth. Instead of championing our network of alliances, the administration is withdrawing the U.S. from the world stage. Instead of building our economic power, Trump has imposed a chaotic tariff policy, hurting some of our biggest trading partners and causing the dollar to drop in value. Instead of bolstering our military lethality, Trump's Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is leaving our military more vulnerable. One hundred days into his second term, the U.S. is weaker on the world stage and less safe from threats than we were on January 20. And our friends and adversaries notice. First, look at America's standing in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization — the strongest and most successful defensive alliance. NATO's Article V states that an attack against one member is considered an attack against all. It's only been invoked once: on September 12, 2001. After the horrific 9/11 terrorist attacks, our allies helped secure U.S. airspace and deterred terrorist activity in the Mediterranean Sea. Their troops stood shoulder to shoulder with ours in deploying to Afghanistan. This network of alliances like NATO, which expanded to 32 countries in 2024, helps protect the U.S. and maintain its strength. And yet Trump has chosen the path of isolation. He has said that the U.S. might not support NATO countries if they don't meet their spending requirements. He has repeatedly threatened to walk away from supporting Ukraine, and has already withheld military aid packages and temporarily suspended intelligence sharing. And he has turned off humanitarian aid and support to countries that need it most, allowing countries like Russia and China to fill the vacuum. Trump's policies and incompetence work in U.S. adversaries' favor. Before his second term, Trump claimed he could end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. Now, as special envoy Steve Witkoff travels to Moscow again and again to meet with President Vladimir Putin, Russia continues to bomb Ukrainian cities and kill innocent Ukrainian civilians. Trump has even doubted that Putin wants peace, while trying to claim that his earlier timeline was both 'an exaggeration' and 'in jest.' Nevertheless, none of that has not stopped the Trump administration from catering to Russian demands, proposing that Kyiv relinquish significant territory, that Crimea should be acknowledged as part of Russia and that Ukraine should be kept from joining NATO. As for the global economy, Trump has injected chaos into world markets. On so-called 'Liberation Day,' Trump imposed some of the highest tariffs ever on America's trading partners. Most of these duties were paused after panic in the markets, but if implemented, experts project these blanket tariffs will cost Americans over $4,000 a year. Less easily quantified, but still considerable, is the damage done to our country's standing. Our allies are already turning to other nations — including even our adversaries — for economic, financial and military support. As some of our largest trading partners, like Canada, Mexico, Japan and Korea, become more closely aligned with other countries, this could lead to a shift in the global balance of power. And when America is economically strained, our national security is equally strained. And then there is of course our military. The President fired numerous highly respected senior officers, including: General CQ Brown Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the first woman to lead the Navy; General James Slife, the vice chief of the Air Force; and the top judge advocate generals for the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, who advise the military on how to legally conduct their actions. These members of our military are not political appointees who come in and depart with a president. They have decades of essential experience and have reached these positions because of their deep knowledge and background on how to make our military more lethal and protect Americans against any future wars. Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth continues to be embroiled in scandals, including his sharing of sensitive information in Signal text groups. Intentionally sharing sensitive intelligence on unsecure systems would end a career, and for someone who talks a big game about supporting warfighters, Hegseth's actions put our service members in harm's way. Elsewhere, the administration is withdrawing hundreds of troops from Syria, despite continuing threats from the Islamic State; considering merging U.S. European Command and U.S. Africa Command into a single entity even as Russian and Chinese influence grows in Africa; and possibly ceding the NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) role—traditionally held by the EUCOM commander and an American for nearly 75 years. In just 100 days, President Trump has completely disregarded the values and alliances that underpin American national security. This is not the moment for America to go it alone. It's a moment for the U.S. and its allies to lock arms, defend our shared interests, and lead — together and as a team. A divided West is a weaker West. And a weaker West only strengthens those who wish to see this country fall. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rep. Bresnahan joins bipartisan effort to create Congressional term limits
Apr. 24—WILKES-BARRE — U.S. Rep. Rob Bresnahan Jr. on Thursday said public office should not be seen as a lifelong career, but as a service to the community and country. "Term limits allow for more discussion and new ideas in Congress," said Rep. Bresnahan, R-Dallas Township. "As a younger member, I have seen how representation from the younger generations is lacking, and term limits would allow for these new generations to voice their opinions in an elected capacity." Rep. Bresnahan announced his co-sponsorship of — an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit the number of terms a Member of Congress may serve. Those serving in the House of Representatives would be limited to serving three terms. "I am proud to serve as the Representative for Pennsylvania's 8th Congressional District, and I take great pride in advocating for my home in Congress," Rep. Bresnahan said. "This is not a career for me, but rather a chance to give back to the community that raised me." If ratified, Rep. Bresnahan said this amendment would limit those serving in the House of Representatives to three terms, and those serving in the Senate would be limited to two terms. U.S. Senators serve six-year terms; House members serve two-year terms. In order to ratify a Constitutional amendment under Article V of the Constitution, Rep. Bresnahan said both chambers of Congress may propose an amendment by a vote of two-thirds of all Members present. The proposed amendment then must be ratified by the states as prescribed in Article V and as specified by Congress. According to the Pew Research Center, an overwhelming majority of adults — 87% — favor limiting the number of terms that members of Congress are allowed to serve. Read the full text of the bill at Reach Bill O'Boyle at 570-991-6118 or on Twitter @TLBillOBoyle.
The Guardian
16-04-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Re-arm, reassure and spend big: how the Asia Pacific is responding to a new era under Trump
Donald Trump's return to the White House has stoked fears over Washington's commitment to the security of its allies in the Asia Pacific at a time when tensions are running high in the region, home to several potential flashpoints. Countries across the region are urgently considering their options in a new era where the US president has sided with Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, suggested 'cleaning out' Gaza in order to redevelop it, and unleashed punishing tariffs on allies and enemies alike. Strategies range from seeking new security reassurances from the US to bolstering defence spending, and lifting the long taboo on the possible development of their own nuclear deterrents. Most concern is focused on the Taiwan Strait, with its commercially and strategically vital shipping lanes, where China has been flexing its muscles in an attempt to intimidate the self-governed island. Beijing is also embroiled in territorial disputes with south-east Asian nations and Japan, while North Korea continues to develop nuclear bombs and more sophisticated weaponry, emboldened by its alliance with Russia. The government last month boasted of 'the most significant increase in defence spending in peacetime Australia since the end of the second world war', but there is no plan to approach the figure demanded by Trump of Nato allies – 5% – nor even his assumed compromise figure of 3.5%. Australian defence spending was A$53.3bn (US$32.1bn) in 2023–24, 2% of the country's GDP. The Treasury forecasts it will reach 2.4% of GDP by 2027–28. For Australia, 3.5% of GDP would be more than A$90bn ($54.3), about 75% more than the actual defence budget. Much of Australia's focus is on long-range deterrence, particularly submarines and missile defences. Since 1951, Australia and the US have been enjoined by the Anzus treaty (along with New Zealand), an agreement often discussed in terms akin to the Nato alliance – but which is, in reality, much weaker. There is no equivalent to Nato's Article V in the Anzus agreement – it commits parties only to 'consult together' whenever the security of one is 'threatened in the Pacific'. Increased co-operation – and 'interoperability' – between the US and Australian militaries is a common refrain from ministers on both sides of the alliance. Its most significant manifestation is the Aukus agreement (forecast to cost Australia up to A$368bn ($221.9) by the mid-2050s), under which the US is proposing to sell between three and five nuclear powered submarines to Australia early next decade, before a specifically built Aukus submarine will be in the water by the early 2040s. Australia has long been regarded as an unswerving US ally, 'with us even in our less-advisable wars', as senior Pentagon nominee Elbridge Colby told the Senate in March. But Australia has flagged one potential point of departure: while not ruling out involvement, deputy prime minister Richard Marles has said Australia has 'absolutely not' given the US any guarantees of assistance in a war between America and China over the status of Taiwan. The chaos of Trump is either a dangerous precipice or a golden opportunity for China. It could well be both. The US's decision to impose tariffs on China's neighbours makes it harder for Chinese companies to circumvent the duties by offshoring their supply chains. But it also could have the unintended effect of undermining the US's attempts to galvanise the region to unite against China's military buildup. In March, US defence secretary Pete Hegseth conducted a multi-stop tour across Asia, promising to shift US focus to the Indo-Pacific in 'in the face of Communist China's aggression in the region'. Hegseth made his comments in the Philippines, a key US security ally. He also described Japan as a 'warrior country' that is 'indispensable' to tackling China. But shortly after his trip, the US announced tariffs of 17% on imports from the Philippines and 24% on Japan. China reacted angrily to Hegseth's comments on Japan, accusing the US of 'instigating ideological antagonism'. But rhetoric aside, China is using the retreat of the US as a stable economic partner as an opportunity to bolster its relations with its neighbours. It has eased trade restrictions on Japan and sought agreements with India over the disputed border territory of Ladakh. This diplomatic push will make it harder for the US to lean on allies in Asia to unite against China. In the meantime, China's rapid military buildup continues apace. This year it will increase defence spending by 7.2%, continuing its trend of increasing defence spending faster than GDP growth, which last year was 5%. The US defence department estimates that China's true military spending is 40-90% more than its public budget. The rising threat posed by China is felt more deeply in Taiwan than anywhere else. Xi's overhaul and revamp of the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is primarily geared towards being able to annex Taiwan by force if Beijing can't bully it into accepting Chinese rule. Resources and leadership have shifted eastward, favouring the navy, and joint operations now include the increasingly militarised Coast Guard, and China's paramilitary fleet of maritime militia fishing boats. Taiwan, which can't hope to match the PLA militarily, has been preparing. But it has also had to respond to Trump's second term, which has demonstrated something of a souring on Taiwan: the US is Taiwan's most significant security partner, bound by law to provide Taiwan with the means to defend itself. But during his campaign and since taking office, Trump has questioned the worth of US support for Taiwan, and suggested it pay for protection. His administration has also called for major increases in Taiwan's defence spending from the current rate of below 3% to as much as 10% of GDP. Taiwan's government says that's impossible, and would involve spending almost as much as the central government's entire annual operating budget of NT$3tn ($92bn). Instead, Taiwan's president, Lai Ching-te, has pledged an increase in overall defence spending to more than 3% of GDP – as long as it can get past a highly obstructionist, opposition-controlled legislature. He has also noted that Taiwan's GDP has grown in the past eight years, so while the percentage remained low, in real terms Taiwan's national defence budget increased by 80%. Taiwan buys billions of dollars in weapons from the US. Among its efforts to appease Trump's trade imbalance rhetoric, Taiwan has pledged to buy more. President Lai has ramped up security measures to counter China, and launched a major program to boost Taiwan's social and defensive resilience, bringing government and public sector groups together to boost protections of Taiwan's energy, communication and other critical infrastructure, and to better prepare its 24 million people for a crisis. Under President Ferdinand Marcos Jr, the Philippines has taken a tougher stance against China, and moved closer to the US, with which it has a mutual defence treaty. The US has been granted expanded access to Philippine military bases, and the two countries have also agreed to increase the sharing of intelligence and technology to allow the sale of weaponry by the US to the Philippines. Washington itself has highlighted the mutual defence treaty with Manila. Last month, Hegseth met Marcos in Manila, and stated the two countries must stand 'shoulder to shoulder' in the face of the threat represented by China. The Philippines is modernising its armed forces – earmarking $35bn this year alone – and strengthening partnerships with allies as it struggles against Chinese assertiveness in the region, particularly in the disputed South China Sea. Later this month the US and Philippines will conduct annual military drills known as the Balikatan exercise. Troops from Australia – as well as observers from Japan and, for the first time, Poland and the Czech Republic – will also participate. Vietnam, like many countries in south-east Asia, has always tried to avoid taking sides in the rivalry between the US and China. As tensions have soared under the new Trump administration, which recently announced a punishing 46% tariff on Vietnam, this balancing act has become especially challenging. When China's president, Xi Jinping, visited Hanoi shortly after the tariff announcement, Trump suggested the two sides were discussing how to 'screw' the US. His comments underline the juggling act that Hanoi is trying to maintain. Vietnam is seeking to appease Washington to reduce its tariff. It is reportedly preparing to crack down on Chinese goods shipped from its territory and tighten controls on sensitive exports to China. It is also promising to buy more US goods, including in defence and security products. Vietnam counts both the US and China as important economic partners. Washington is also a helpful counterbalance to Beijing's assertiveness in the South China Sea, where China's claims overlap with those of Vietnam. Last year was a record year for island building by Vietnam in the South China Sea. In February, China's foreign ministry criticised construction work by Vietnam to build an airstrip on the Barque Canada Reef, in the Spratly chain. Beijing claims the islands are 'illegally occupied' by Vietnam. As it completes such landfill activities, the defence capabilities it plans to build on the reclaimed land will become clear – and likely antagonise China. Vietnam is also seeking to strengthen its military capacity, including by developing its own defence industry. Trump's language on his return to the White House triggered a sense of déjà vu in Japan and South Korea, the US's two main allies in north-east Asia. Echoing his criticisms during his first term, Trump recently complained that the US-Japan security treaty was 'so one-sided' – a reference, in Trump's view, to the cost borne by Washington of stationing about 50,000 troops in Japan. Japan contributes $2bn towards the cost of hosting US troops, who under the treaty's terms are committed to come to Japan's defence if it is attacked. Under hawkish prime minister – and Trump ally – Shinzo Abe, Japan began beefing up its defence posture in 2022, including promises to buy more weapons from the US. Subsequent prime ministers have followed suit, vowing to double defence spending by 2027 so that it accounts for 2% of GDP. Defence spending by Japan is expected to reach ¥9.9tn ($70bn) in the year to March 2026, according to the defence ministry, equivalent to 1.8% of gross domestic product. The defence minister, Gen Nakatani, recently referenced growing pressure from Washington to shoulder more of the cost of their defence and hosting US troops. The latest spending projection 'show that our efforts to strengthen our defence capabilities are steadily progressing', he said. But Tokyo's arms build-up may still not be enough. Elbridge Colby, Trump's Pentagon policy chief, recently demanded that Japan raise military spending to 3% of GDP. Higher spending has been matched by stronger capabilities, including plans to deploy long-range missiles capable of striking China and North Korea, and the adoption of a position that would allow Japan to strike enemy bases first if it believed an attack was imminent – a posture critics say violates the country's purely defensive 'pacifist' constitution. The domestic political turmoil of the past five months has caused alarm in the US and Japan over South Korea's commitments to regional security. The impeachment of Yoon Suk Yeol means the country will elect a new leader on 10 June, with polls suggesting that Lee Jae-myung, a liberal, is favourite to replace Yoon, a pro-US conservative. While it attempts to overcome the trauma of Yoon's impeachment trial, there is little indication of how far a new president would go in resisting Washington's demands to spend more on its defence and the deployment of about 28,000 troops. The US military presence in the South has long been vital to Seoul's ability to deter a potential attack by nuclear-armed North Korea. Tensions between the two Koreas grew under Yoon. . As Trump focuses on the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, there is concern that the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, could feel empowered to behave more provocatively. Some lawmakers were disturbed by Trump's dismissive treatment of the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in the Oval Office in February. That has sown seeds of doubt in Seoul about the strength of Washington's commitment to South Korea's security – a bedrock of bilateral ties since the end of the 1950-53 Korean war. While the North continues to develop weapons of mass destruction, its neighbour is also broaching the sensitive subject of having its own nuclear deterrent, independent of the US nuclear umbrella. Once the preserve of conservative hawks, now progressive commentators are calling on the South to have the capacity to turn fissile material into nuclear weapons.
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Reagan would be aghast at Trump's foreign policy decisions
We agree with President Donald Trump and others who believe that China's trade abuses are a real threat to U.S. economic interests and jobs, but his decision to launch a trade war with China, and, indeed, the whole world, is not a fitting response. Various measures, including tariffs and countervailing duties, can be used to deal with proven unfair trade practices, but blanket tariffs are irresponsible and destined to do real damage. The president mistakenly believes America is a victim, that she has been cheated by devious trading partners and ripped off by ungrateful, freeloading allies over the past 80 years. We categorically reject this dark view and believe that the president should heed the wise words of President Ronald Reagan, who said, 'We should beware of the demagogs who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag.' But Trump has shown little interest in acting as a friend toward our friends. He has wrongly accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of instigating Russia's unprovoked war against Ukraine. He and Vice President JD Vance have expressed hostility toward Europe, the European Union and NATO and have undermined the transatlantic partnership so severely that few people believe the United States would honor an Article V commitment if Russia were to attack a NATO ally. Further, Trump's insulting comments about making Canada the 51st state and his obsession with taking Greenland from Denmark have forced longtime friends and allies to re-examine their relationships with the United States. Trump also wants to retake the Panama Canal, which was returned to Panama under a treaty many decades ago. Tragically, for far too many countries around the world, America is now viewed as a threat to the cause of freedom and democracy and not a protector of it. Imperialism, spheres of influence and Manifest Destiny have returned with a vengeance. It all feels so 19th century, which may explain why President William McKinley's name is regularly invoked to validate Trump's determined effort to impose tariffs. Trump's rollout of his so-called reciprocal tariff schedule this month used a formula that did not factor in tariff rates imposed by other countries. Nor did his administration factor in nontariff barriers and currency manipulation. Whoever created the formula appears to have entered the witness protection program, because they've not stepped forward to explain it. Trump's tariffs plan has done more than roil the markets. It has further isolated America and most disturbingly created a crisis of competence and confidence in the United States government. The markets are chaotic, businesses are demanding predictability and stability, farmers are worried about access to export markets, and consumers are bracing for higher prices on essential goods. Fears of a self-inflicted recession are real. Never before in the history of this great republic have we borne witness to such a poorly planned and executed act of economic malpractice. Combined with the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, the planned silencing of the Voice of America and other critical elements of American soft power, this unprovoked trade war signals to the world that America is mindlessly disengaging and isolating itself. Trump's rejection of a more open trading system has caused many to fear that America is closed for business. Conversely, China is opportunistically filling the void and reaching out to America's despondent friends, allies and strategic partners. America's disengagement is a cause for deep concern, because it makes the world a much more dangerous place. After all, trade wars often precede hot wars. America cannot recede from the global stage and expect security. Similarly, we cannot isolate ourselves from the global market. Although the United States is the richest nation on Earth with the world's strongest and most dynamic economy, we cannot go it alone on trade. Self-sufficiency does not work, and balanced trade with each individual trading partner, as Trump seems to seek, is an impossibility. Indeed, seeking balanced overall trade through artificial trade barriers doesn't make any sense except for those who preach junk economics. There are many factors that determine trade balances, and traffic in goods, alone, is just one measure of them. For example, services trade, which should be included in an overall trade balance, were excluded in the administration's absurd tariff formula. Their inclusion would significantly narrow the trade deficit. We published an article in The Hill before November's election, in which we warned of the dire consequences of Trump's tariff threats. We anticipated the stock market to sink, inflation to rise, manufacturers to suffer and farmers to be harmed, as well as the possibility of a resulting recession. We stand by that story today, although we did not anticipate the administration would be this reckless in imposing tariffs. There are no winners in trade wars. Ongoing turbulence in the markets proves the point, which forced Trump to blink and announce a 90-day pause on many of his extreme, misguided and so-called reciprocal tariff increases. While this development is a welcome reprieve, uncertainty and risk remain. The president's senseless tariff actions have signaled to the world America has abandoned the post-World War II global order it has led for the past 80 years. In the quote from Reagan above, he goes on to say: 'The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion; it is an American triumph, one we worked hard to achieve, and something central to our vision of a peaceful world of freedoms.' We much prefer the bright light of Reagan's shining city on the hill than the darkness of Trump's American carnage. Clearly, the president and some of his economic team recognized their recent decisions needed to be modified and corrected. The question is will they accept reason in their future decision-making or continue to fall prey to the chaos of the past few days? This article was originally published on
Yahoo
11-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - Vance brings ‘bullying, obfuscation, and confusion' to Greenland
Vice President JD Vance's March 28 visit Greenland laid bare the hubris and hypocrisy at the core of the Trump administration's belligerent, neo-imperialist approach to 'getting' Greenland. Speaking the day after the visit, President Trump reasserted that he would not take the use of military force off the table to 'get' Greenland, insisting: ' We'll get Greenland. Yeah, 100 percent.' What has been missing from the administration's astonishing claims to the territory of one of America's closest NATO allies is any sincere effort to explain why an American land-grab of Greenlandic territory is necessary for U.S. national security — especially given that Greenland is already protected by NATO's Article V security guarantee. President Trump simply insists ad nauseum that 'we need it,' because Greenland is 'a very, very large piece of land. And very, very important for military security.' In the face of these vague justifications for an action that would effectively destroy the NATO alliance and the transatlantic security framework that has protected the United States and Europe for 75 years, Vance's visit to Pituffik Space Base offered reporters an opportunity to press Vance and national security advisor Michael Waltz on the administration's extraordinary claim that U.S. security can only be ensured by taking over the territory of a close NATO ally. The best argument Waltz could muster was to say: 'This is about shipping lanes. This is about energy. This is about fisheries.' (So is the United States willing to go to war with a NATO ally over Arctic fisheries, undeveloped mines and seasonal shipping lanes?) Vance began his remarks by asserting 'there is no amount of bullying, no amount of obfuscating, no amount of confusing the issue,' before bullying his Danish hosts, obfuscating the scope and urgency of current threats, and leaving the world confused as to why the United States feels an urgent need to seize territory from a close ally. Vance pointed out that missiles fired by an enemy into the U.S. are tracked by the Space Force in Greenland. But the U.S. already enjoys this capability at the Pituffik Base. If it needed to boost tracking capabilities, Denmark and Greenland would support new requirements. U.S. control over the territory is not necessary to accomplish this critical task. Vance then turned to the broader issue of Russian and Chinese interest in Arctic passageways, naval routes and minerals, asserting vaguely that they have taken 'extraordinary interest' in Greenland. He excoriated Denmark, saying it 'hasn't done a good job at keeping Greenland safe,' and had not 'kept pace in devoting the resources necessary' to protect the territory from unspecified 'very aggressive incursions from Russia, from China and from other nations.' When pressed by reporters whether there had been any new or specific threats from Russia and China, Vance said he could not 'get too specific.' Recognizing the thinness of his case, Vance raised the prospect that 'the people of Greenland [might] have their future controlled by the Chinese Communist Party' — a leap of logic akin to Condoleezza Rice's conjuring the threat of a nuclear 'mushroom cloud' if the U.S. failed to invade Iraq. Of course, there is no evidence to suggest that Greenland is about to fall under the control of the CCP. After exaggerating the scope and urgency of the threats and vilifying America's Danish ally, Vance demonstrated the hypocrisy behind the administration's insistence on seizing Greenland and its criticism of Denmark. When asked whether there were plans to expand the U.S. presence beyond Pituffik, Vance responded 'No.' But if threats to Greenland are so urgent that the U.S. is considering seizing the territory by force, can it really not spare more than 200 troops for this vital mission? That is barely more than a military band, and the U.S. has hundreds of bands. Vance repeatedly denigrated his Danish hosts, claiming that they had neglected Greenland for 40 years and ignored ' the encroachment of powerful countries as they expand their ambitions.' Of course, Russian ambitions are on explicit display in Ukraine, but Vance insists he doesn't ' really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.' This begs the question: why is a highly unlikely Russian incursion into Greenland such an urgent U.S. strategic priority while a brutal Russian war to seize Ukraine — a war that threatens Europe and the United States today — of no interest? Concluding his visit, Vance more reasonably asserted: 'We need to ensure that America is leading in the Arctic because we know that if America doesn't, other nations will fill the gap where we fall behind.' But the United States has long been leading in the Arctic. Active within the Arctic Council, it also shapes NATO's preparations to boost allied capacity for Arctic defense. If the U.S. genuinely seeks to lead, it should continue to use its influence, military capacity and economic resources to do so. Aggressively taking the territory of Arctic allies, however, is not leadership, it's naked aggression that will profoundly damage U.S. leadership in the Arctic and beyond. This is the ultimate hypocrisy of the Vance visit: On the one hand he acknowledged that 'the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination,' and expressed 'hope that they choose to partner with the United States because we're the only nation on Earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security.' But if they elect not to turn their sovereignty over to the United States, well, he said, 'we have to have Greenland,' one way or another. The administration's hubris and hypocrisy could not have been on brighter display than on the icy, blinding shores of Greenland during this awkward, unwelcome and aggressive vice presidential foray to the far north.
