French President Macron to visit Greenland next week
The leaders plan to discuss the security situation in the North Atlantic and the Arctic with Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, as well as other topics such as economic development, climate change and renewable energy.
Greenland has been the focus of an unusual amount of international attention since US President Donald Trump, who came to power in January, said he wanted to take control of the territory. Greenland is largely autonomous but part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
US Vice President JD Vance travelled to the US military base in northern Greenland at the end of March.
Greenland and Denmark have categorically rejected Trump's approaches.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Granderson: Eliminating national holidays is a promising idea. Start with the racist ones
Believe it or not, France has had a form of social security since the 1600s, and its modern system began in earnest in 1910, when the world's life expectancy was just 32 years old. Today the average human makes it to 75 and for the French, it's 83, among the highest in Europe. Great news for French people, bad news for their pensions. Because people are living longer, the math to fund pensions in France is no longer mathing, and now the country's debt is nearly 114% of its GDP. Remember it was just a couple of years ago when protesters set parts of Paris on fire because President Emmanuel Macron proposed raising the age of legal retirement from 62 to 64. Well, now Prime Minister Francois Bayrou has proposed eliminating two national holidays, in an attempt to address the country's debt. Read more: Granderson: Where's the music that meets this moment? Black artists are stepping up In 2023, before Paris was burning, roughly 50,000 people in Denmark gathered outside of Parliament to express their anger over ditching one of the country's national holidays. The roots of Great Prayer Day date all the way back to the 1600s. Eliminating it — with the hopes of increasing production and tax revenue — brought together the unions, opposing political parties and churches in a rare trifecta. That explains why a number of schools and businesses closed for the holiday in 2024 in defiance of the official change. This week, Bayrou proposed eliminating France's Easter Monday and Victory Day holidays, the latter marking the defeat of Nazi Germany. In a Reuters poll, 70% of respondents didn't like the idea, so we'll see if Paris starts burning again. Or maybe citizens will take a cue from the Danes and just not work on those days, even if the government decides to continue business as usual. Here at home, President Trump has also floated the idea of eliminating one of the national holidays. However, because he floated the idea on Juneteenth — via a social media post about 'too many non-working holidays' — I'm going to assume tax revenue wasn't the sole motivation for his comments that day. You know, given his crusade against corporate and government diversity efforts; his refusal to apologize for calling for the death penalty for five innocent boys of color; and his approval of Alligator Alcatraz. However, while I find myself at odds with the president's 2025 remarks about the holiday, I do agree with what he said about Juneteenth when he was president in 2020: 'It's actually an important event, an important time.' Indeed. While the institution of slavery enabled this country to quickly become a global power, studies show the largest economic gains in the history of the country came from slavery's ending — otherwise known as Juneteenth. Two economists have found that the economic payoff from freeing enslaved people was 'bigger than the introduction of railroads, by some estimates, and worth 7 to 60 years of technological innovation in the latter half of the 19th century,' according to the University of Chicago. Why? Because the final calculations revealed the cost to enslave people for centuries was far greater than the economic benefit of their freedom. In 1492, when Christopher Columbus 'discovered America,' civilizations had been thriving on this land for millennia. The colonizers introduced slavery to these shores two years before the first 'Thanksgiving' in 1621. That was more than 50 years before King Louis XIV started France's first pension; 60 years before King Christian V approved Great Prayer Day; and 157 years before the 13 colonies declared independence from Britain on July 4, 1776. Of all the national holidays around the Western world, it would appear Juneteenth is among the most significant historically. Yet it gained federal recognition just four years ago, and it remains vulnerable. The transatlantic slave trade transformed the global economy, but the numbers show it was Juneteenth that lifted America to the top. Which tells you the president's hint at its elimination has little to do with our greatness and everything to do with the worldview of an elected official who was endorsed by the newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan. If it does get to the point where we — like France and Denmark — end up seriously considering cutting a holiday, my vote is for Thanksgiving. The retail industry treats it like a speed bump between Halloween and Christmas, and when history retells its origins, it's not a holiday worth protesting to keep. YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Solve the daily Crossword
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Los Angeles Times
Eliminating national holidays is a promising idea. Start with the racist ones
Believe it or not, France has had a form of social security since the 1600s, and its modern system began in earnest in 1910, when the world's life expectancy was just 32 years old. Today the average human makes it to 75 and for the French, it's 83, among the highest in Europe. Great news for French people, bad news for their pensions. Because people are living longer, the math to fund pensions in France is no longer mathing, and now the country's debt is nearly 114% of its GDP. Remember it was just a couple of years ago when protesters set parts of Paris on fire because President Emmanuel Macron proposed raising the age of legal retirement from 62 to 64. Well, now Prime Minister Francois Bayrou has proposed eliminating two national holidays, in an attempt to address the country's debt. In 2023, before Paris was burning, roughly 50,000 people in Denmark gathered outside of Parliament to express their anger over ditching one of the country's national holidays. The roots of Great Prayer Day date all the way back to the 1600s. Eliminating it — with the hopes of increasing production and tax revenue — brought together the unions, opposing political parties and churches in a rare trifecta. That explains why a number of schools and businesses closed for the holiday in 2024 in defiance of the official change. This week, Bayrou proposed eliminating France's Easter Monday and Victory Day holidays, the latter marking the defeat of Nazi Germany. In a Reuters poll, 70% of respondents didn't like the idea, so we'll see if Paris starts burning again. Or maybe citizens will take a cue from the Danes and just not work on those days, even if the government decides to continue business as usual. Here at home, President Trump has also floated the idea of eliminating one of the national holidays. However, because he floated the idea on Juneteenth — via a social media post about 'too many non-working holidays' — I'm going to assume tax revenue wasn't the sole motivation for his comments that day. You know, given his crusade against corporate and government diversity efforts; his refusal to apologize for calling for the death penalty for five innocent boys of color; and his approval of Alligator Alcatraz. However, while I find myself at odds with the president's 2025 remarks about the holiday, I do agree with what he said about Juneteenth when he was president in 2020: 'It's actually an important event, an important time.' Indeed. While the institution of slavery enabled this country to quickly become a global power, studies show the largest economic gains in the history of the country came from slavery's ending — otherwise known as Juneteenth. Two economists have found that the economic payoff from freeing enslaved people was 'bigger than the introduction of railroads, by some estimates, and worth 7 to 60 years of technological innovation in the latter half of the 19th century,' according to the University of Chicago. Why? Because the final calculations revealed the cost to enslave people for centuries was far greater than the economic benefit of their freedom. In 1492, when Christopher Columbus 'discovered America,' civilizations had been thriving on this land for millennia. The colonizers introduced slavery to these shores two years before the first 'Thanksgiving' in 1621. That was more than 50 years before King Louis XIV started France's first pension; 60 years before King Christian V approved Great Prayer Day; and 157 years before the 13 colonies declared independence from Britain on July 4, 1776. Of all the national holidays around the Western world, it would appear Juneteenth is among the most significant historically. Yet it gained federal recognition just four years ago, and it remains vulnerable. The transatlantic slave trade transformed the global economy, but the numbers show it was Juneteenth that lifted America to the top. Which tells you the president's hint at its elimination has little to do with our greatness and everything to do with the worldview of an elected official who was endorsed by the newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan. If it does get to the point where we — like France and Denmark — end up seriously considering cutting a holiday, my vote is for Thanksgiving. The retail industry treats it like a speed bump between Halloween and Christmas, and when history retells its origins, it's not a holiday worth protesting to keep. YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow
The Hill
3 days ago
- The Hill
As US support for NATO wobbles, France and UK strengthen nuclear ties
Last week, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron signed the 'Northwood Declaration' committing themselves to 'deepen their nuclear cooperation and coordination.' They announced that 'a U.K.-France Nuclear Steering Group will be established to provide political direction for this work. It will … coordinate across nuclear policy, capabilities, and operations.' The agreement reflects growing apprehension on the part of both leaders that America's commitment to NATO is no longer as strong as it once was, at the very time that Vladimir Putin's Russia poses the greatest security threat to Europe since the Cold War. This fear is explicitly reflected in their respective updated national security strategies. Britain issued its 'Strategic Defence Review' on June 2 and France released its national strategic review on Bastille Day, July 14. Both documents have almost identical language when discussing the Russian threat, both stress the importance of their 'independent' nuclear deterrents to European security and both mention their growing cooperation and reference the Northwood Declaration. This is not the first time London and Paris have committed themselves to work more closely on strategic nuclear matters. As the U.K. review notes, 'The 1995 Chequers Declaration stated that there is no situation in which a threat to a vital interest of one is not a threat to both.' In reality, in the three decades since that earlier declaration, not all that much changed in the strategic nuclear ties between France and the U.K., despite some progress in the 2010 Lancaster House agreements. The reason is that there are fundamental differences between the nature of the two deterrents that are difficult to overcome. The British nuclear deterrent has been closely tied to that of the U.S. since the 1950s. A 1958 mutual defense treaty between the two countries (updated in 2014 and extended indefinitely in 2024) provides for the transfer of classified nuclear information, fissile material and technology from the U.S. to the U.K. and for Britain to use American testing infrastructure. But the history here is complicated. In December 1962, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, who in June of that year had called independent nuclear capabilities 'dangerous, expensive, prone to obsolescence and lacking in credibility as a deterrent,' canceled the air-to-surface nuclear Skybolt missile that Britain had planned to purchase from the U.S. Within days of the cancellation, and fearing that Washington wanted to undermine Britain's deterrent, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan reached an understanding with President John F. Kennedy that British nuclear forces would be based on American submarine-launched ballistic missiles that would carry British nuclear warheads. At that time, Macmillan asserted Britain's freedom to act on its own 'where Her Majesty's Government may decide that supreme national interests are at stake.' Nevertheless, given Britain's dependence on America for so many aspects of its nuclear program, it is not at all clear just how independent London's strategic deterrent really is, even when its 'supreme interests are at stake.' Britain remains constrained by the 1958 treaty should it wish to 'communicate classified information or transfer or permit access to or use of materials, or equipment … to any nation' without U.S. permission. That places significant limits on potential nuclear cooperation with France. France has no such limitations. French nuclear development has a significantly different history. The French deterrent has always been truly independent, to the degree that for decades Paris pursued a 'tous azimuts' or 'in any direction' strategy that, in theory, trained its strategic nuclear deterrent as much against the U.S. as against the Soviet Union. Unlike Britain's deterrent, which is explicitly committed to the defense of NATO, the French nuclear deterrent addresses threats to France itself, though that includes those territories in the Pacific, Indian Ocean and the Caribbean that are considered part of the French state. In light of uncertainty regarding President Trump's commitment to Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, Macron has dropped ever-broader hints that France might extend its nuclear umbrella beyond its borders, thereby more closely aligning its strategy with that of the U.K. Notably, Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz have announced the creation of a Franco-German security council, which appears to be the first step toward the creation of an extended French nuclear umbrella, though Macron has made it clear that final decision authority would remain with France. Merz has also sought a similar relationship with Britain that goes beyond London's more general commitment to NATO. In that regard, it is significant that both Britain and France deployed their nuclear submarines in response to Moscow's implicit (and on occasion explicit) threats to employ tactical nuclear weapons against Ukraine. It is arguable that the Kremlin took note of these deployments and as a result toned down its nuclear saber-rattling. Still, neither country is truly prepared to go it alone in the strategic nuclear realm without American support. Their forces are simply too small relative to those of Russia or, for that matter, China. Britain and France are clearly moving closer toward real strategic nuclear coordination, despite the limitation of the 1958 treaty between Washington and London. The Northwood Declaration may indeed yield greater results than previous avowals of cooperation. Their joint deterrents may prove compelling, as they appear to have been in support of Ukraine. Nevertheless, it is America's strategic nuclear deterrent, not those of London and Paris, that continues to undergird NATO. It is therefore crucial that Washington's commitment to support the alliance with its nuclear umbrella remain as strong as it has been since it was first extended in the early decades of the Cold War. Dov S. Zakheim is a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and vice chairman of the board for the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He was undersecretary of Defense (comptroller) and chief financial officer for the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2004 and a deputy undersecretary of Defense from 1985 to 1987.
