Latest news with #J.D.Vance
Time Magazine
3 days ago
- Business
- Time Magazine
Pete Hegseth Talked a Big Game to Indo-Pacific Allies—but Trump Mistrust Runs Deep
Against the backdrop of U.S. Vice-President J.D. Vance's jaw-dropping polemic against European democracies at February's Munich Security Conference, this was a welcome return to sense, if not sanity. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered a powerful though measured speech at Singapore's IISS Shangri-La Dialogue on Saturday, pointedly calling out 'Communist China' for its 'massive military build-up, … grey zone tactics, and hybrid warfare,' while also hailing the strength and importance of America's regional alliances and using the word 'peace' 27 times. 'President Trump is a leader of peace, a man of peace, a force for peace,' Hegseth told the scores of Asia-Pacific defense and military chiefs crammed into the ballroom at Singapore's Shangri-La Hotel. 'And together, we will achieve that peace through strength.' Hegseth repeatedly called the Indo-Pacific 'our priority theater' and, in a marked departure from Vance, actually praised European nations for hiking defense spending as an example that their Asian counterparts should emulate. 'It was quite surprising that he used Europe as a reference in terms of GDP [defense] spending,' Micael Johansson, president and CEO of the Swedish arms manufacturer Saab, told TIME. 'But it was a good speech and more collaborative than I had expected.' As Hegseth described it, American defense policy was now that Europe's security would be left to Europeans, while the U.S. was focusing its rebuilt military might—augmented by a $1 trillion defense spend next year, a 13% year-on-year rise—on the Indo-Pacific. This would focus on boosting America's forward force deployment, helping allies and partners strengthen their security capabilities, and rebuilding defense industrial bases including within friendly nations. 'A strong, resolute, and capable network of allies and partners is our key strategic advantage,' said Hegseth. Hegseth also unleashed several broadsides against China, accusing strongman President Xi Jinping of having 'ordered his military to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027,' with the former Fox News anchor warning that an assault on the self-ruling island—which politically split from the mainland following China's 1945–49 civil war—'could be imminent.' These remarks drew the inevitable rebuke from Beijing, which issued a statement saying Hegseth 'vilified China with defamatory allegations' that were 'filled with provocations and intended to sow discord.' Beijing also warned that Washington 'must never play with fire on [the Taiwan] question,' which is 'entirely China's internal affair.' Notably, China's defense minister stayed away from the annual security summit for the first time since 2019. Admiral Dong Jun was rumored to have been under a corruption investigation amid a sweeping purge of high-ranking PLA officers, though latest reports suggest that he's been cleared. The Chinese delegation that did attend treated Hegseth's accusations with scorn. 'He used a very strong, harsh tone, which surprised me a little, and it's unconstructive and hypocritical,' says Prof. Da Wei, director of the Center for International Security and Strategy (CISS) at Beijing's Tsinghua University. 'Because the U.S. is imposing high tariffs on regional countries, so how can you expect them to partner with you against another economic power?' Indeed, Trump's internecine global trade war was the glaring elephant in the room. Asked about the 'reciprocal tariffs' imposed in April, Hegseth joked: 'I am happily in the business of tanks, not trade, and I will leave that discussion to the man who knows how to do it best.' Which was the ultimate takeaway for the brass hats present. Hegseth's statement of commitment to the region and working with allies was broadly welcomed but hedged by the chaotic approach of the guy he reports to. Indeed, Hegseth showed his hand when he admitted: 'My job is to create and maintain decision space for President Trump, not to purport to make decisions on his behalf.' Delegates in Singapore were only too aware that today, more than during any other U.S. administration, power rests with just one man, whose constant policy flip-flops— embarrassing Zelensky before lambasting Putin; ripping up one Iranian nuclear deal before seeking another; hiking and pausing tariffs—have conjured a bevy of TACO, 'or Trump always chickens out,' memes as well as the impression that American words have never been cheaper. 'I'm quite sure it's just talk,' one European delegate said of Hegseth's speech. A Bangladeshi military officer agreed: 'It still feels like Trump is a more inward-looking than global President.'
Mint
3 days ago
- Business
- Mint
Resource war: How commercial assets turned into front line weaponry
Chennai: Recently, J.D. Vance, the US vice president, confirmed what the world feared. He termed the competition between the US and China in developing artificial intelligence (AI) as an 'arms race'. Policy makers in both the countries believe that whoever wins this race will dominate the world, going forward. At the core of this battle is computing power and this has given a fresh impetus to the chip war that began between the US and China five years ago. In May 2020, during his first term as the president of the US, Donald Trump fired the first salvo. The US commerce department added Chinese tech giant Huawei Technologies to the 'Entity List', a measure which prevented the company that sells smartphones, telecom equipment and cloud computing services from accessing advanced computer chips produced or developed using US technology or software. The reason? The US feared that Huawei's attractively priced products, backed by Chinese government subsidy, would soon dominate the next generation telecom networks, ending American clout in the field. The move had a debilitating impact on Huawei. Its global expansion took a hit and revenue crashed. 'A corporate giant faced technological asphyxiation," Chris Miller, in his book Chip War, wrote. According to him, this development reminded China of its weakness. 'In nearly every step of the process of producing semiconductors, China is staggeringly dependent on foreign technology, almost all of which is controlled by its geopolitical rivals—Taiwan, Japan, South Korea or the US," he wrote. China began investing billions of dollars to develop its own semiconductor technology in a bid to free itself from America's chip choke, he added. But the US is in no mood to make this endeavour easy for China. It has progressively tightened restrictions on China's semiconductor sector. The 'Entity List' has since grown to include over 140 Chinese companies—fabrication units, semiconductor tool companies and even investment companies that operate in the sector. Restrictions have extended from chips with high bandwidth memory to semiconductor manufacturing equipment and software tools. China, which sees US restrictions as an attempt to deny it the technological greatness it deserves, has retaliated. It began imposing restrictions on export of critical and rare earth minerals that are crucial for production of weapons, semiconductors and electric vehicles. There are 17 rare earth minerals and China has absolute control on most of them (see chart). In October 2023, it introduced export permits for graphite needed to produce lithium ion batteries. In December that year, it banned transfer of rare earth minerals extraction and separation technologies and the technology to make magnets. China, over the years, has mastered these technologies. In the same month, it banned the export of antimony, gallium and germanium apart from imposing stricter review of graphite exports to the US. In February 2025, in response to Donald Trump imposing 10% tariffs on all Chinese products, the middle kingdom added five more critical minerals— tungsten, indium, bismuth, tellurium and molybdenum to the export control list. This meant that companies require special export licenses to export the minerals. On 4 April, after Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, China further added seven more minerals and magnets to the export restrictions list. There is no clarity whether these restrictions have been suspended after the recent US and China trade talks in Geneva. The US is now scrambling to find alternate sources for these minerals. All of a sudden, economic resources which were till recently seen predominantly as commercial assets, have acquired new edge as strategic instruments. They are no longer controlled just by the market— geopolitics has a greater say over them. A short history Demand for resources began to rise after the Industrial Revolution in 1760 which introduced the use of metals such as iron and steel. The rise of mechanized factory systems increased output and thus, demand for resources. As the demand rose, countries such as Great Britain, France and Belgium began colonizing the world in search of resources. 'Colonization was all about exploitation of natural resources," said S. Gurumurthy, writer and a corporate advisor. The British empire met its demand for cotton, tea, leather, coal and iron ore from India for almost two centuries, he added. Post World War II, resources were seen as market instruments. They were freely traded for a price. According to the World Trade Organization, between 1950 and 2024, global trade volumes grew by 4,500%. 'It was also a period when countries used trade to increase co-dependence in the hope that it would enhance peace and welfare," Dhruva Jaishankar, executive director, Observer Research Foundation — America, said. Europe bought gas from Russia in the hope that the latter would leave them alone. The US built a strong economic relationship with China on the assumption that the Asian nation could integrate with the global economy, eliminate poverty, and embrace democratic principles. Of course, trade in resources has not been entirely free. Nations have imposed restrictions. In the last 75 years, the US is the biggest culprit. As a sole super power, it denied various countries technology and resources that it deemed were dual use—for both civil and military applications. As the US-China rivalry intensifies, the weaponization is spilling beyond dual use technologies. China, it appears, is not loath to leveraging the domination it has built in the global economy. The new normal China accounts for more than 30% of global manufacturing output. This is the highest concentration of manufacturing in one place," said Jaishankar. The US had a similar share for a short period of time immediately after World War II when the protracted war had destroyed much of production facilities in mainland Europe and Japan. 'China has managed to achieve this without a war," he said, adding 'it is now trying to use its manufacturing power as a strategic leverage." It is not just manufacturing. Consider China's domination in the shipping space. It controls over 100 ports across 63 nations. As of 2022, it had 96% share in container production, 48% of global ship building orders and 80% of ship-to-shore cranes. It has similar domination across many sectors. 'What is worrying is that China has revealed its intention to weaponize goods, logistics or the entire supply chain," said an Indian government official who did not want to be identified. There is a conscious attempt by China to make the world depend on it. Simultaneously, it is reducing its dependence on the world. The restriction on export of rare earth minerals is just a beginning, he added. The resentment For more than four decades, China had silently focused on growing its economy. It eased rules to attract manufacturing taking advantage of its low wage costs. It invested in infrastructure—power, roads, ports and airports. It enabled building factories at unheard of scale which substantially reduced the cost of production. Global brands rushed to China to take advantage of it. Until a few years ago, 85% of all iPhone produced by Apple were assembled in China. At one point in time, almost all of Nike's shoes were produced in China. There were warnings within the US about this excessive dependence. Michael Pillsbury's book, The Hundred-Year Marathon, detailed China's secret desire to upstage the US as a global superpower. He, indeed many others, pointed out that China harboured a deep resentment and a sense of injury for losing its status as a middle kingdom when it dominated the world—economically, culturally and militarily. In the early 1700s, China (and India) had a large share of the world economy. On the eve of the Industrial Revolution, in 1760, it accounted for a third of the global economy. In the two centuries that followed, it lost out significantly. By 1979, China's share of the global economy was just 2%. Chinese consider the period between 1839 and 1945 a 'century of humiliation' that saw political fragmentation, decline and subjugation by foreign powers such as Russia, Japan and the West. The Chinese yearned to regain this lost glory. Today, China has 19% share in the global GDP, fast catching up with the US' 27%. Late wakeup call Policy makers in the US, for years, took a benign view of China's growth. Pillsbury pointed out that they saw their China policy as a commercial win and ignored the strategic dimension. Only when China began to assert itself, did they realise the depth of US' dependence on China and its real motive. It is not a surprise that Pillsbury, as Trump's advisor, is the architect of US' China policy now. Today, the US and China are engaged in a contest. The US is playing to its strength by denying advanced technology to China. By focusing on the massive $295 trade deficit (in 2024) and imposing massive tariffs, the Trump administration wants to reduce its dependence. China, for its part, is thinking long term to upstage the US. Lizzi Lee, a fellow at the Asia Society Policy Institute's Centre for China Analysis, best described its strategy in a recent Financial Times article. He wrote: 'Xi is not looking to win the trade war in a conventional sense. He's positioning China for a drawn-out, grinding, contest by building domestic capacity, hardening supply chain and rooting out perceived vulnerabilities to foreign pressure." India play As the US and China fight for supremacy, India needs to have a strategy to deal with the fallout. 'Countries, be it China or the US, have exclusive rights over their resources. Weaponizing such resources is the new normal," said Ajay Srivastava, founder, Global Trade Research Initiative, a trade focussed think tank. India needs to put in place policies to minimise the impact of such decisions. India should identify and develop resources that the world would need and use it as a bargaining chip, he added. 'India may lack such resources now but we need to identify those and invest now," Gurumurthy added. China, Jaishankar said, does not have all the resources within its nation. It had worked assiduously to tap these critical minerals across the world, especially from African nations. China's strength, he added, is in developing the ability to process them in an effective manner. 'India needs to follow a similar strategy. We should strike deals with nations which have these resources and import the mineral for processing in India. That will give us control over it," he explained. India has already drawn up a list of critical minerals and has taken steps to secure them. It is part of the Mineral Security Partnership, a multi-nation initiative led by the US comprising 40 countries. It has struck, or is close to striking, a few deals in Latin America and Africa. But processing the minerals is easier said than done. It is capital intensive and requires a long lead time. Investors don't support such projects unless there is a strong business case. Experts have also suggested that India should frame policies to suit its strengths. Some have questioned pushing electrification of vehicles in a big way. With India lacking the raw material to make batteries, the rise in electric vehicles will shift India's energy dependence from West Asia to China. Others have recommended that India should invest heavily in taking a lead in green hydrogen. India is blessed with abundant sunlight and focus on storage systems can help it use solar power to drive green hydrogen efforts. India's efforts, such as production-linked incentives, have cut its dependence on China for solar cells and modules. More needs to be done if India has to become self-sufficient. To make all this possible, the country, particularly its private sector, would need to invest in research and development. If there is one thing that can come in India's way is its hubris, warned experts. 'What is needed is a long term vision and a step-by-step approach to achieve it," GTRI's Srivastava said.
Mint
5 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
Attack Harvard to make America grate on its own nerves again
Imagine if China or Russia tried to destroy a US asset that generates tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars of economic value, plays a major role in American leadership in science and technology and turbocharges our prestige and soft power. We'd expect our government to go to war to defend it. But in attacking Harvard University, that's exactly the kind of damage the Trump administration is trying to do. Despite the school's failures and flaws, it remains a vital national asset—and the administration's actions are far more dangerous to America than they are to Harvard. Also Read: Mint Quick Edit | Harvard's stance is good for America When you tour the UK's Cambridge University, your guide will show you empty niches containing stone fragments. They're the remnants of statues smashed by Puritan fanatics during the English Civil War. But Cambridge survived and flourished. Universities are enormously resilient and count time in centuries, not electoral cycles. Long after the Trump administration is gone, there will still be a Harvard. But an America deprived of everything Harvard contributes will be far poorer and weaker. I have a stake in this battle: I spent seven years on the faculty at Harvard Business School and still teach in the Harvard Kennedy School's Senior Executive Fellows programme. But I'm also the first to agree with colleagues who say the university has fallen short of its ideals. Its own reports on antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias on campus contain devastating revelations about the school's inability to maintain an orderly and safe learning environment for everyone. Harvard should better protect its students—even, when necessary, from each other. It must guarantee freedom of speech on campus. And it should find ways to have more diverse political representation among both students and faculty. Also Read: Columbia missed the bus of academic freedom that Harvard took But the Trump administration isn't trying to fix Harvard. It's trying to control it via blatantly illegal tactics. Authoritarians have always feared universities because of their role as centers of dissent. It's not an accident that Ohio State and Yale University graduate, J.D. Vance, gave a speech titled 'The Universities Are the Enemy' in 2021. If President Donald Trump breaks America's oldest and wealthiest school, no other university and few institutions of any kind will dare stand against him. The administration's ostensible concern about antisemitism seems so obviously to be a pretext that Secretary of Education Linda McMahon's letter declaring Harvard ineligible for federal funding never mentions it, even as it attacks the school for giving fellowships to Democratic politicians. Three of the last four Harvard presidents were Jewish (including the current one), as is Penny Pritzker, chair of the Harvard Corporation, the ultimate authority over the university. This makes it an odd target for those whose primary concern is antisemitism. An administration sincerely concerned about the issue might start by not hiring multiple senior staffers with close ties to antisemitic extremists. Also Read: Barry Eichengreen: The end of American exceptionalism? Government control would destroy what makes Harvard—and any other school—valuable in the first place. Universities play a disproportionate role in producing revolutionary ideas because they embrace freedom of thought and dissent. Taking orders from politicians is antithetical to that spirit. Crippling Harvard, and along with it, American higher education, would be a grievous blow to the US. The university's contributions to American history and wealth are difficult to overstate. It has produced eight presidents and countless members of Congress, governors, Supreme Court justices, CEOs and entrepreneurs, along with more Medal of Honor recipients than any school except West Point and the Naval Academy. Over the last 20 years, Harvard founders have averaged nine unicorns—startups valued at more than $1 billion—every year. That's first among all world universities. And in just the last five years, companies founded by Harvard alums have gone public with a combined value of $282 billion. (I'll also note that a quarter of all unicorn startups have a founder who came to the US as a foreign student—exactly the population Trump is targeting at Harvard and other schools). Also Read: Is American exceptionalism finally on its last legs? Both the US economy and the country's international preeminence depend on primacy in science and technology. That leadership is under threat as never before: American universities, long leaders in basic and groundbreaking research, are falling behind. When Nature ranked the top 10 research universities in the world in 2023, eight were in China. Well, most of them are falling behind; Harvard was No. 1. If you really believe in America first, attacking it is the last thing you'd do. Then there's the university's global reputation, which functions as an emissary of American excellence. I once spent time as a visiting faculty member at Tsinghua University, China's MIT. While I was there, the dean would routinely bring visiting dignitaries to my office so he could show off the Harvard professor teaching at Tsinghua. (I used to joke that I expected them to toss me peanuts like an elephant at the zoo.) The school is also a powerful instrument for the propagation of US values. In the last 25 years, the leaders of countries from Canada to Taiwan have studied at Harvard. The next generation will look similar: The future Queen of Belgium is a current Harvard student, and the daughter of China's President Xi is an alumna. The global elite, in other words, pays for the privilege of sending their children to Harvard to experience the best of American life and be indoctrinated with American values. The attack on Harvard is really an attack on America. Harvard, like every old and important institution, including our nation, is far from perfect. But like America, Harvard is worth fighting for. ©Bloomberg The author is a Bloomberg Opinions writer.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
17 People I Wanted To Give A "YOU TRIED" Sticker To
I have been failing so hard lately, I really needed a reminder that I'm not alone. Luckily, the internet is filled with content for any need, including people who tried and failed so spectacularly that their efforts are forever immortalized online. Like this person who attempted to draw Ms. Sabrina Carpenter for their art class: A+ for effort – I don't knock anyone who's trying!!! But I do love to laugh about it, so here are 16 other people who made me feel a bit better in all my recent failed attempts: person who tried to fix their heater themselves because they had COVID and were quarantining, only to trip over a pipe and fall through the ceiling: person who thought dyeing the white couch would be a good way to cover up the stains: Don't show this to J.D. Vance. person who tried to hide their Tesla Cybertruck with a Ford decal: That's one way to do it. poor soul who tried to hang a curtain rod on their door, only to realize their issue when they took a step back: person's fiancé who was being thoughtful by carrying the paint down to the basement in the new house, only to realize he was carrying waaay too much: Related: I Really, Really, Really Hate Myself For Laughing At These 57 Hilariously Unfortunate People landlord who gave an apartment building's fallen down fence the ye ol' landlord special: Good... ...Lord. this neighbor who put up a "privacy fence" all by themselves: Related: 26 People Who Had Overwhelming Gut Instincts They Couldn't Were Right Oof. person's coworker who thought their mug warmer was a cordless charger: person who tried to find an artistic way to store their TP: "My mom laughed the moment I sent these pics to her." this person who was *so close* to getting this felt Piglet right: person who got capital C crafty with their Christmas decor: I love it. person who's reselling their dresser and tried brushing it off as just "needs another paint": "I don't think another coat is gonna fix this." person's attempt at a "pallet accent wall": mom who tried salvaging a rubber glove: wife who spray painted this chair aqua blue, and the husband who's trying to resell it: They're both guilty here. person who fixed a door that didn't fit by just chopping off its bottom: "Hey, at least it doesn't scrape the floor anymore!" lastly, this person who presumably made and is trying to sell their "beautiful" "shell design" trash can on Facebook marketplace: Man, sometimes ignorance is bliss. Also in Internet Finds: 51 Wildly Fascinating Photos Of Disorders, Injuries, And Variations In The Human Body That I Cannot Stop Staring At Also in Internet Finds: 19 Things Society Glorifies That Are Actually Straight-Up Terrible, And We Need To Stop Pretending Otherwise Also in Internet Finds: 27 Grown-Ass Adults Who Threw Such Unbelievable Temper Tantrums, Even The Brattiest Toddler Couldn't Compete
Buzz Feed
6 days ago
- General
- Buzz Feed
17 Fails That Deserve A 'You Tried' Sticker
I have been failing so hard lately, I really needed a reminder that I'm not alone. Luckily, the internet is filled with content for any need, including people who tried and failed so spectacularly that their efforts are forever immortalized online. Like this person who attempted to draw Ms. Sabrina Carpenter for their art class: A+ for effort – I don't knock anyone who's trying!!! But I do love to laugh about it, so here are 16 other people who made me feel a bit better in all my recent failed attempts: This person who tried to fix their heater themselves because they had COVID and were quarantining, only to trip over a pipe and fall through the ceiling: This person who thought dyeing the white couch would be a good way to cover up the stains: Don't show this to J.D. Vance. This person who tried to hide their Tesla Cybertruck with a Ford decal: That's one way to do it. This poor soul who tried to hang a curtain rod on their door, only to realize their issue when they took a step back: This person's fiancé who was being thoughtful by carrying the paint down to the basement in the new house, only to realize he was carrying waaay too much: This landlord who gave an apartment building's fallen down fence the ye ol' landlord special: Good... ...Lord. And this neighbor who put up a "privacy fence" all by themselves: Oof. This person's coworker who thought their mug warmer was a cordless charger: This person who tried to find an artistic way to store their TP: "My mom laughed the moment I sent these pics to her." And this person who was *so close* to getting this felt Piglet right: This person who got capital C crafty with their Christmas decor: I love it. This person who's reselling their dresser and tried brushing it off as just "needs another paint": "I don't think another coat is gonna fix this." This person's attempt at a "pallet accent wall": This mom who tried salvaging a rubber glove: This wife who spray painted this chair aqua blue, and the husband who's trying to resell it: They're both guilty here. This person who fixed a door that didn't fit by just chopping off its bottom: "Hey, at least it doesn't scrape the floor anymore!" And lastly, this person who presumably made and is trying to sell their "beautiful" "shell design" trash can on Facebook marketplace: Man, sometimes ignorance is bliss.
