Category: Conflict

As we enter 2026, the global news cycle has moved with its characteristic and often cruel velocity. The headlines are dominated by domestic debates over ICE, the geopolitical maneuvers surrounding Greenland, and the surge of international protests. Yet, beneath the noise of these newer crises, a silence has settled over the Gaza Strip—a silence that must not be mistaken for peace.

The “Gaza issue” is far from resolved. Despite the fragile ceasefire that took hold in late 2025, the reality on the ground remains a testament to human suffering and political stagnation. To forget Gaza now is to abandon millions to a cycle of poverty, rubble, and “managed” violence that offers no path toward a dignified future.

The presidency of Donald Trump has fundamentally altered the concept of “trust” in modern governance, replacing a system of stable, value-based expectations with one defined by transaction and unpredictability. This erosion of trust operates on two fronts: internationally, where the bedrock of the transatlantic alliance has been shaken, and domestically, where the legitimacy of the administrative state and the democratic process itself has been called into question.

The Shadows of Davos: Will the Greenland Accord Mirror Munich?

The announcement today in Davos of a “framework” agreement between President Trump and European leaders—purportedly ending the immediate threat of 10% to 25% tariffs in exchange for a “future deal” on Arctic security and Greenland—has been met with a collective sigh of relief from global markets. On the surface, the “trade bazooka” has been holstered, and the specter of a trans-Atlantic trade war has receded. However, for those with a sense of history, the atmosphere feels uncomfortably familiar. One cannot help but look at this “framework” and hear the faint, haunting echoes of the 1938 Munich Agreement.

While the geopolitical stakes of 2026 are not an exact mirror of the 1930s, the structural parallels are unsettling. Today, we must ask: Is this truly a blueprint for a stable Arctic, or is it merely “peace in our time”—a temporary reprieve that emboldens future aggression?

Each year, as we observe Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we do more than simply remember a man; we honor a philosophy of transformation that remains the most viable blueprint for social progress. In our current era, where tensions between government agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and immigrant rights protesters often reach a boiling point, King’s legacy offers a critical middle path. His life taught us that the pursuit of justice is most powerful when it is conducted with a disciplined commitment to peaceful assembly and a profound, mutual respect between the citizen and the state.

The Case for Global Oversight: Why the UN Needs the Power to “Police the Police”

The fundamental duty of any police force is to protect and serve the citizenry. However, across the globe, we increasingly witness a disturbing inversion of this role. From the aggressive tactics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the United States to the systemic suppression of dissent by police in Russia, Iran, and China, law enforcement has frequently become an instrument of state-sponsored abuse rather than a guardian of public safety. Because these abuses often stem from the highest levels of national government, domestic accountability mechanisms are frequently compromised or non-existent. To protect universal human rights, the United Nations must be granted expanded authority to monitor national police forces, supported by an independent body with the mandate to “police the police.”

The Greenland Summit: A Failed Dialogue and a Missing Arbiter

The high-stakes meeting at the White House on January 14, 2026, between representatives from Denmark, Greenland, and the United States, was ostensibly designed to de-escalate what has become a defining geopolitical crisis of the mid-2020s. Instead, the sit-down—hosted by Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—underscored a chilling reality: the international order is currently a theater of “might makes right,” where the sovereignty of smaller nations is treated as a line item in a real estate ledger.

President Trump’s relentless pursuit of Greenland, framed as a “national security necessity” to preempt Russian and Chinese influence, has pushed a NATO ally to the brink. While the meeting resulted in the formation of a “working group,” the fundamental disagreement remains: Washington insists on acquisition, while Copenhagen and Nuuk insist on the inviolability of borders. Yet, in this room filled with diplomats and security hawks, there was one glaring, inexcusable absence: the Secretary-General of the United Nations.