August 21, 2019

"The cancellation of what was considered an important state visit in Denmark was described as a 'farce' by the leader of the populist Danish People's Party, Kristian Thulesen Dahl."

"'What is this man thinking of though? And with grounds that are worthy of an April Fools' joke,' he wrote in a tweet. Danish Conservative MP Rasmus Jarlov, who earlier said that 'of all things that are not going to happen, this is the most unlikely,' accused Mr Trump of lacking respect for his country in a tweet on Wednesday."

BBC on the Greenland ruckus.

ADDED: It's August. It's hot. We're tired of thinking about the southern border and "racism" and — who remembers? — Mueller and whatever it was last week. We're having a mental vacation is Greenland. So cool. So remote. So imagination-y. The escapism is fantastic.



And who cares if Danes are miffed? They're white people. Nice choice of antagonists, Trump. Why do they have Greenland anyway? They were not the first people of Greenland or even the first Europeans:
In prehistoric times, Greenland was home to several successive Paleo-Eskimo cultures known today primarily through archaeological finds. The earliest entry of the Paleo-Eskimo into Greenland is thought to have occurred about 2500 BC. From around 2500 BC to 800 BC, southern and western Greenland were inhabited by the Saqqaq culture.... From 2400 BC to 1300 BC, the Independence I culture existed in northern Greenland.... Around 800 BC, the Saqqaq culture disappeared and the Early Dorset culture emerged in western Greenland and the Independence II culture in northern Greenland. The Dorset culture was the first culture to extend throughout the Greenlandic coastal areas, both on the west and east coasts. It lasted until the total onset of the Thule culture in 1500 AD. The Dorset culture population lived primarily from hunting of whales and caribou.

From 986, Greenland's west coast was settled by Icelanders and Norwegians, through a contingent of 14 boats led by Erik the Red. They formed three settlements—known as the Eastern Settlement, the Western Settlement and the Middle Settlement—on fjords near the southwesternmost tip of the island. They shared the island with the late Dorset culture inhabitants who occupied the northern and western parts, and later with the Thule culture that entered from the north. Norse Greenlanders submitted to Norwegian rule in 1261 under the Kingdom of Norway (872–1397)....

The Norse settlements, such as Brattahlíð, thrived for centuries but disappeared sometime in the 15th century, perhaps at the onset of the Little Ice Age. Apart from some runic inscriptions, no contemporary records or historiography survives from the Norse settlements.... Recent archeological studies somewhat challenge the general assumption that the Norse colonisation had a dramatic negative environmental effect on the vegetation... More recent evidence suggests that the Norse, who never numbered more than about 2,500, gradually abandoned the Greenland settlements over the 1400s as walrus ivory, the most valuable export from Greenland, decreased in price due to competition with other sources of higher-quality ivory, and that there was actually little evidence of starvation or difficulties.....

In 1605–1607, King Christian IV of Denmark sent a series of expeditions to Greenland and Arctic waterways to locate the lost eastern Norse settlement and assert Danish sovereignty over Greenland. The expeditions were mostly unsuccessful, partly due to leaders who lacked experience with the difficult arctic ice and weather conditions, and partly because the expedition leaders were given instructions to search for the Eastern Settlement on the east coast of Greenland just north of Cape Farewell, which is almost inaccessible due to southward drifting ice. The pilot on all three trips was English explorer James Hall.

After the Norse settlements died off, Greenland came under the de facto control of various Inuit groups, but the Danish government never forgot or relinquished the claims to Greenland that it had inherited from the Norse. When it re-established contact with Greenland in the early 17th century, Denmark asserted its sovereignty over the island. In 1721, a joint mercantile and clerical expedition led by Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede was sent to Greenland, not knowing whether a Norse civilization remained there. This expedition is part of the Dano-Norwegian colonization of the Americas. After 15 years in Greenland, Hans Egede left his son Paul Egede in charge of the mission there and returned to Denmark, where he established a Greenland Seminary. This new colony was centred at Godthåb ("Good Hope") on the southwest coast. Gradually, Greenland was opened up to Danish merchants, and closed to those from other countries.

When the union between the crowns of Denmark and Norway was dissolved in 1814, the Treaty of Kiel severed Norway's former colonies and left them under the control of the Danish monarch. Norway occupied then-uninhabited eastern Greenland as Erik the Red's Land in July 1931, claiming that it constituted terra nullius. Norway and Denmark agreed to submit the matter in 1933 to the Permanent Court of International Justice, which decided against Norway.

Greenland's connection to Denmark was severed on 9 April 1940, early in World War II, after Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany.
On 8 April 1941, the United States occupied Greenland to defend it against a possible invasion by Germany. The United States occupation of Greenland continued until 1945....

During this war... Governor Eske Brun ruled the island under a law of 1925 that allowed governors to take control under extreme circumstances; Governor Aksel Svane was transferred to the United States to lead the commission to supply Greenland... After the collapse of the Third Reich, Albert Speer briefly considered escaping in a small aeroplane to hide out in Greenland, but changed his mind and decided to surrender to the United States Armed Forces.

Greenland had been a protected and very isolated society until 1940. The Danish government had maintained a strict monopoly of Greenlandic trade, allowing only small scale troaking with Scottish whalers. In wartime Greenland developed a sense of self-reliance through self-government and independent communication with the outside world. Despite this change, in 1946 a commission including the highest Greenlandic council, the Landsrådene, recommended patience and no radical reform of the system. Two years later, the first step towards a change of government was initiated when a grand commission was established. A final report (G-50) was presented in 1950: Greenland was to be a modern welfare state with Denmark as sponsor and example. In 1953, Greenland was made an equal part of the Danish Kingdom. Home rule was granted in 1979.

Following World War II, the United States developed a geopolitical interest in Greenland, and in 1946 the United States offered to buy the island from Denmark for $100,000,000. Denmark refused to sell it. Historically this repeated an interest by Secretary of State William H. Seward. In 1867 he worked with former senator Robert J. Walker to explore the possibility of buying Greenland and perhaps Iceland. Opposition in Congress ended this project. In the 21st century, the United States, according to WikiLeaks, remains interested in investing in the resource base of Greenland and in tapping hydrocarbons off the Greenlandic coast. In August 2019, the American president Donald Trump again proposed to buy the territory, prompting premier Kim Kielsen to issue the statement, “Greenland is not for sale and cannot be sold, but Greenland is open for trade and cooperation with other countries — including the United States.”
For more information on what happened to Denmark on April 9, 1940, here's "Denmark in World War II" (Wikipedia). Key sentence: "Sixteen Danish soldiers died in the invasion, but after two hours the Danish government surrendered, believing that resistance was useless and hoping to work out an advantageous agreement with Germany."

309 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 309 of 309
J. Farmer said...

@bleh:

That's sort of a bullshit answer, though. It's just a "principle," as you say, and it's not even a deep-rooted or enduring one.

That principle is the undergirding of modern foreign relations. It is the foundation of the UN Charter, which the US ratified in 1945, and under Article VI of the Constitution, "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land."

But a sparsely populated territory that's strategically located and could be rich in resources?

From the Act on Greenland Self-government: "Recognising that the people of Greenland is a people pursuant to international law with the right of self-determination, the Act is based on a wish to foster equality and mutual respect in the partnership between Denmark and Greenland. Accordingly, the Act is based on an agreement between Naalakkersuisut and the Danish Government as equal partners."

J. Farmer said...

Wait...what was that thing about Greenland needing independence from Denmark?

Greenland is in a political union with Denmark. If Greenland wished to have another arrangement with another country, it would first need to succeed from the Kingdom of Denmark. This is laid out in the Act on Greenland Self-government: "(1) Decision regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland. (2) If decision is taken pursuant to subsection (1), negotiations shall commence between the Government and Naalakkersuisut with a view to the introduction of independence for Greenland.(3) An agreement between Naalakkersuisut and the Government regarding the introduction of independence for Greenland shall be concluded with the consent of Inatsisartut and shall be endorsed by a referendum in Greenland. The agreement shall, furthermore, be concluded with the consent of the Folketing. (4) Independence for Greenland shall imply that Greenland assumes sovereignty over the Greenland territory."

Jaq said...

" it would first need to succeed from the Kingdom of Denmark.”

Let me guess, Wikipedia.

J. Farmer said...

@AAT:

Let me guess, Wikipedia.

Act on Greenland Self-government

steve uhr said...

Trump the statesmen. Embarrass and anger your allies - including the Wueen who extended the invitation- for no good reason. Such treatment is gonna make them more likely to sell Greenland? Is that what The Art of the Deal recommends? sad

J. Farmer said...

p.s. The Danish government says it can't sell Greenland, the Greenlandic government says Denmark can't sell Greenland, and Danish law says that Denmark cannot sell Greenland. If you think I've gotten this issue wrong, please provide a counterargument.

Jaq said...

So the misspelled 'secede'?

J. Farmer said...

@steve uhr:

He's playing 4-D chess!

J. Farmer said...

@AAT:

So the misspelled 'secede'?

No that was my typo. Take note of where the quotation marks begin and end.

J. Farmer said...

p.s. You misspelled "they"

Jaq said...

Sorry, my bad. I don’t usually call out commenters on typos, pot, kettle, (can we still say that?) I thought it was in the quote.

J. Farmer said...

@AAT:

Sorry, my bad. I don’t usually call out commenters on typos, pot, kettle, (can we still say that?) I thought it was in the quote.

No problem. I don't usually either since I make so many of my own, but that was served up so well, I couldn't help but take the bait ;)

Fritz said...

We could move Washington D.C. to Greenland.

Jaq said...

The Atlantic says that Trump has defected!

"At this particular moment, it is not sufficient to say that the free world is without a leader. He has actually defected to the other side.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/trump-defects-autocrats/596518/

Jaq said...

I’m sorry: “The Atlantic reports that Trump has defected.”

As Mike Sylvester says, please make the mental correction.

Amadeus 48 said...

Folks, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. If the USA wanted to obtain sovereignty over Greenland, we would start with discussions with our ally, Denmark. Then we would see what is feasible.
Trump and team was interested; the Danish PM made a foolish public response that was personally insulting; Trump said we’ll see you later.
I don’t know what Denmark had on it’s agenda, but now they’ll have to wait.
End of story.
Boo-hoo.

J. Farmer said...

@AAT:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/trump-defects-autocrats/596518/

Now I think cancelling the meeting over this issue was pretty stupid, but holy shit is that article overwrought. One, the phrase "leader of the free world" is stupid, a holdover from the bipolar world of the Cold War, and should be retired. Two, I wish we would leave NATO, but I think the likelihood of Trump pursuing that in his second term is close to nil. Third, what exactly would be wrong with "a partnership with Russia?" (whatever that means). The US and Russia have far more convergent interests than we do divergent issues, and our two countries already cooperate on a number of issues.

J. Farmer said...

@Amadeus 48:

the Danish PM made a foolish public response that was personally insulting

Calling the notion that Denmark can sell Greenland "absurd" is personally insulting?

Birches said...

Must be sad to get kicked off a blog and have to resort to new pseudonyms to try and be heard.

I got through the first few comments, realized they had a familiar stench and then realized why.

Amadeus 48 said...

Yes..
I hope you aren’t serious and your ideas are absurd.
This is not the language of diplomacy.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"Yes. And of course, if it were up to me, Puerto Rico would be jettisoned tomorrow"

Amen. What's the downside? Put 99-year leases on the military bases and ditch the rest.

J. Farmer said...

@Amadeus 48:

Yes..
I hope you aren’t serious and your ideas are absurd.
This is not the language of diplomacy.


Oh please. "I strongly hope that this is not meant seriously." If that is personally insulting, then that evinces an extreme thin skin and a ridiculous level of pettiness. If I said that I wanted to talk to you about buying something you didn't own and couldn't sell, and you called the idea "absurd," I should take that as a personal insult? Trump of all people is going to complain about (extremely mild) impolitic talking?

jeremyabrams said...

"A little patch of land/That hath in it no profit but the name." Says Hamlet.

Amexpat said...

Trump and team was interested; the Danish PM made a foolish public response that was personally insulting; Trump said we’ll see you later.

If they were seriously interested then why not contact the Danish government directly instead of issuing a tweet that many, including Trump supporters, thought was a diversionary amusement.

The Danish PM was and has been polite, even after Trump cancelled his visit.

Jaq said...

Like the French said when they lost Quebec. “Nothing but a few acres of snow."

Jim at said...

All of you who voted for him, how many more instances of this sort of thing will it take to make you think you may have made a huge mistake?

Because he's still better than the alternative, you stupid wench.
What will it take to get that through your thick skull?

Jaq said...

"The Danish PM was and has been polite, even after Trump cancelled his visit.”

We get it, Trump screwed the pooch. Now put this on a scale with Obama’s fuckups. Did he bomb Greenland and allow insurgents to depose whatever leader they had and sodomize him with an assault rifle? Because that’s the standard of fuckup that Obama set.

If a “Helen” is a fuckup large enough to launch a thousand refugee ships, a “micro-Helen” is a fuckup that launches only one refugee ship. This isn’t even a “micro-Helen."

Jaq said...

DId you abandon Obama after he invaded Libya? Just curious. How about when he exacerbated the civil war in Syria? Did you abandon him then, because those were orders of magnitude worse fuckups for a guy who ran on not doing those things.

Jaq said...

I guess it’s “milli-Hellen.” But it’s still not a micro-Helen because there are no refugees.

Jim at said...

The next time the Dems win the presidency (and they will eventually), they're going to be bent on revenge.

Yeah. Because leftists need a reason to be assholes.
Good one.

rcocean said...

Trump was quite correct in cancelling the visit. As he stated, buying Greenland is NOT some crazy idea, and previous US President had talked to the Danes about it. I tried to find the video where Trump talked about it and Google does everything they can to prevent that. They constantly gave me CNN, NYT, Wapo, where the TALK ABOUT what Trump said. I finally had to type in "Trump Greenland Fox News" search last 24 hours, Video, to get it.

Google is CONSTANTLY trying to filter and gatekeep and push the left-wing MSM.

rcocean said...

Obama goes on Apology tours. Trumps stands up for the USA. The nevertrumpers and Liberals hate that.

rcocean said...

Trump said, all the Danes had to do is politely say "No" or "Not interested". Not say "that's absurd" or laugh at Trump for suggesting it. They forget that Trump is POTUS, whether they like it or not. If Trump had treated the Danes that way, all the liberals would be screeching about "The Ugly American" and demanding Trump issue a formal apology.

rcocean said...

What precisely did the Danish PM say? Do we have the video? I'm tired of trusting the MSM with their biased para-phrasing. Dismissing an offer to buy by calling it "Absurd" is not diplomatic. Its not like we're bulling the Danes. There's no reason for Trump to pay a special visit to Dennmark. Its just one of 20 small European countries.

rcocean said...

If the Chinese want RI or Massachusetts, we should sell.

rcocean said...

There's no reason why we need to buy 100% of Greenland. The small southern part, with 90% of the people could remain Danish. The rest of the ice/snow would be ours.

Jaq said...

"Because leftists need a reason to be assholes.”

Marxism requires enemies to maintain cohesiveness.

Jaq said...

the Atlantic says that Trump should be spending his energy combatting white supremacy and concede geopolitics to our rivals.

rcocean said...

People forget the Danes used to be big Imperialists. They didn't end up with much, because the bigger dogs stole most of their dinner. They're like an ugly chick who's chaste until marriage. Its not what she really wanted, she just had to settle for it, and she's now proudly virtuous.

rcocean said...

The Danes and Dutch surrendered without much of struggle in WW2, and that was smart on their part. They were going to lose, and they surrendered before too many people got killed.

Michael K said...

Best version of the Danish PM's comment I've found.

Frederiksen on Sunday said conversations around the US buying Greenland were "an absurd discussion."

"(Greenland Premier) Kim Kielsen has of course made it clear that Greenland is not for sale. That's where the conversation ends," she said.

Trump's talk about buying Greenland, which was first reported by The Wall Street Journal, would not be the first American effort to purchase Greenland. Though President Harry Truman dodged questions about his pursuit of control in the region, the United States allegedly tried to buy Greenland in 1946. And in 1867, Secretary of State William Seward showed interest in purchasing the island.


She seems to me to have been a bit rude.

Michael K said...

The Danish PM was and has been polite, even after Trump cancelled his visit.

Not in my opinion. Some Europeans think playing to the US left is clever.

J. Farmer said...

@rcocean:

Trump was quite correct in cancelling the visit. As he stated, buying Greenland is NOT some crazy idea, and previous US President had talked to the Danes about it.

Per Reuters, these are the sole public remarks Frederiksen made on the issue:

To Danmarks Radio (Denmark's public broadcasting company): "It’s an absurd discussion, and Kim Kielsen has of course made it clear that Greenland is not for sale. That’s where the conversation ends."

To Sermitsiaq (a Greenland newspaper): "Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland. I strongly hope that this is not meant seriously."

Truman's entertaining of the idea was 80 years ago. And while the idea of wanting to acquire Greenland itself is not crazy, the notion that Denmark can sell Greenland is absurd. And I thought in the Trump era we weren't supposed to have a hair trigger to undiplomatic language. Calling an idea "absurd" is extremely mild and certainly no reason to quarrel with Denmark.

rcocean said...

Cancellation with two "LL"'s - why? Cancel is OK. Why another "L". I want answers!

J. Farmer said...

She seems to me to have been a bit rude.

Trump is going to complain about someone seeming "a bit rude?" Just last month, he called the UK ambassador to the US "wacky," a "very stupid guy," and a "pompous fool." How diplomatic is that language?

rcocean said...

Of Course Denmark can sell Greenland, and if not the whole thing, they can certainly sell a large part of it.

What right does Denmark have to Greenland? None! Its Like the Virgin Islands. We bought them for $25 million in Gold. who was that from? Oh, that right Denmark! What right did they have to an island in the Caribbean? None! Frankly, we should have kept Greenland after WW2, and told Denmark - here's $100 million, don't like it, declare war.

rcocean said...

Andy Jackson would've shot the Danish PM in a duel and then taken Greenland by force. Nobody insulted Andy Jackson and lived. Even a girl.

rcocean said...

The Danes put on an innocent act, but at heart they are pirates:

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

J. Farmer said...

@rcocean:

Of Course Denmark can sell Greenland, and if not the whole thing, they can certainly sell a large part of it.

Greenland is not a colonial possession of Denmark's. They are in a political union together. You can repeat, "of course Denmark can sell Greenland" all you want, it won't make it true.

Darkisland said...

Blogger The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

"Yes. And of course, if it were up to me, Puerto Rico would be jettisoned tomorrow"

Amen. What's the downside? Put 99-year leases on the military bases and ditch the rest.


Well, one downside is that we are all US citizens. Same as if we had been born in NY or California.

That could be changed tomorrow by Congress to prevent newborns from being citizens. But that could be circumvented by traveling to the US to give birth. (I know people in Antigua that go to Canada to give birth so their children are Canadian citizens if Antigua goes ever goes pear-shaped. These are 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation Antiguans)

There is no mechanism, short of a constitutional amendment, to remove citizenship from 14A citizens.

So what do you do about all these now ex-pat citizens?

John Henry

Darkisland said...

From the little I've read about Greenland in the past few days, it seems like they could secede from Denmark if they held a plebescite.

Then, as an independent nation, they could come to the US and say "We'd like to be a territory." And the US could say "Sure" and negotiate the terms.

Greenland would be in the same situation as now except with the US as protector instead of Denmark.

And it wouldn't cost us a nickle.

John Henry

Jaq said...

Greenland can sell Greenland. Trump made a mistake of not qualifying the partners in his proposed deal. If Trump bought off the Greenlandians, say in a bidding war with the Chinese, Russia cannot afford to play this game, Denmark couldn’t stop such a deal. Trump could make it very sweet for them. Making them each a land baron on the ice free part, while we worry about the Arctic that they don’t really need or care about.

Jaq said...

This is better than shark attacks. I hope it doesn’t mean a huge terrorist attack is coming.

J. Farmer said...

@Darkisland:

I understand your comment was stressing but since Cracker was responding to something I wrote, I should add that I don’t believe it would be feasible, which is why I prefaced it with, “if it were up to me.” And of course, it isn’t.

Darkisland said...

This is from last year and seems dead now since both Denmark and the US objected.

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/09/07/how-a-potential-chinese-built-airport-in-greenland-could-be-risky-for-a-vital-us-air-force-base/

Then there is this

So long, and thanks for all the fishChinese investment may help Greenland become independent from Denmark

Islanders think rare earths and tourism will make them self-reliant

https://www.economist.com/europe/2018/05/03/chinese-investment-may-help-greenland-become-independent-from-denmark

John Henry

Jaq said...

If all Greenland wants is complete independence they should keep the habitable part and sell us the rest at an exorbitant price.

Jaq said...

Maybe they should divide it in half, like Hispaniola and sell us the worthless half.

Jaq said...

I am sure we could find jobs for refugees there gutting fish and the like.

Jaq said...

Buttigig is toast. If ever there were a moment for a man who spoke Norse to seize! And where is he?

Narr said...

Ownership will be moot when the ice-shelf slides off, with who knows what effect on ocean temps, salinity, and currents like the NAC--but maybe that will be after the methane release from the thawing "perma"frost; so many disastrous scenarios! Perhaps they'll cancel out.

IMO the ability of the Chinese to project power globally is not great and won't be for a while if ever. The US still has the best overall geostrategic position of any plausible hegemon.

Narr
Not even Secular Viking Nazi Danes should frighten us!



Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

we can call it "Trump's Folly"

Wilson Carroll said...

This whole idea of buying and selling big chunks of countries is really interesting. We bought the Louisiana Territory, Alaska and Manhattan Island (all at great prices!) so it's not as crazy as it sounds. And we got a lot of other cool stuff from Mexico by making them an offer they couldn't refuse.

Mr. Fabulous said...

(World Famous Lurker says....)

Seems to me that Denmark has now cut themselves out of the deal. Trump can negotiate directly with the Greenlanders if he wishes, and cut a deal with them, and Denmark wouldn't be able to stop the deal. And Trump wouldn't have to pay Denmark a dime.

Seeing Red said...

I was actually thinking Canada and the US together could make an offer.

Denmark isn’t paying their fair NATO share, we could take part in trade.

Ken B said...

What a good post. My first thought, like nearly everyone else’s, was this is an example of Trump's petulance. But he has tricked the left into defending the last bastion of European Imperialism. No they cry, the whitest people in Europe should decide Greenland's fate!

Hilarious is right.

Ken B said...

Farmer
Of course they can sell Greenland. The Greenlanders and the Danes constitutionally separate. The US and Greenland agree to a protectorate or like arrangement. The US compensates Denmark for any “costs” and “foregone benefits” as a magnanimous gesture.
Tell me that isn’t really a sale.
It won’t happen, but won’t and can’t are different words.

Ken B said...

Next Farmer will tell me Harvard fencing coaches “cannot” sell Harvard admissions.

RobinGoodfellow said...

“J. Farmer said...
If someone asked me about buying my house, though I have not put it on the market, I would not be insulted.

I am no fan of people acting insulted or offended at the drop of a hat, but that is an inapt analogy. You own your house and have the right to sell it at your whim. Denmark does not own Greenland.”

I infer from your comment that, if someone offered to buy your neighbor’s house from you, it would be reasonable for you to be insulted. As opposed to just explaining, “I’m sorry but I don’t own that house.”

That’s inapt.

Maillard Reactionary said...

The notion of an important state visit to Denmark is an oxymoron.

The writer is just a regular moron.

Maillard Reactionary said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maillard Reactionary said...

The notion of an "important" State visit to Denmark is an oxymoron.

The writer of the article is just a regular moron.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Sorry about the double comment. Blogger is acting a little schizo tonight, but I'll indulge it for now if you will.

James K said...

—You can repeat, "of course Denmark can sell Greenland" all you want, it won't make it true.—

So let’s have Greenland hold a plebiscite. We can call it “Dexit”

rcocean said...

@ Farmer.

First, Denmark said Trump's offer was absurd. They did not say, "Hey we'll have to check with Greenland."

Second, Any sale would be conditional on Greenland agreeing. But what if Denmark agreed to a sale and then told Greenland they had three choices: (1) Independence (2) sale to USA and (3) staying part of Denmark with $0 subsidy.

rcocean said...

I have a hard time believing the 59,000 people in Greenland wouldn't agree to sell if we paid them $1 million each.

Carl said...

Greenland is American, though (continentally)

Nancy Reyes said...

the Danish political establishment personally ridiculed the president, and then they expect him to play nice?
By the way: If the MSM stopped ridiculing Trumpieboy, they might notice China's investment in a rare earth metal mine there, and that their proposed investment in an airport could make them a major player in Greenland.
But presumably the MSM can't google these stories.

Maillard Reactionary said...

Nancy Reyes said (approximately):

"But presumably the MSM must assume we cannot google these stories."

Please forgive my minor edit. They really are that pathetic. As is their audience.

Maillard Reactionary said...

J. Farmer: "How diplomatic is that language?"

Not very, just true.

Well, if you dish it out, you have to be able to take it. Trump seems to be able to take it just fine.

Of course, there is a place for indirection in diplomacy, as in all human affairs. But sometimes a good blast of the unvarnished truth can simplify things, and help all involved to, you know, get to the truth.

J. Farmer said...

@Ken B:

Of course they can sell Greenland. The Greenlanders and the Danes constitutionally separate. The US and Greenland agree to a protectorate or like arrangement.

Under the current arrangement, Denmark manages Greenland's foreign affairs and thus Greenland has no capacity to "agree to a protectorate like arrangement." It would first need to secede from its union with Denmark and then could manage its relations with other states.

J. Farmer said...

@rcocean:

Second, Any sale would be conditional on Greenland agreeing. But what if Denmark agreed to a sale and then told Greenland they had three choices: (1) Independence (2) sale to USA and (3) staying part of Denmark with $0 subsidy.

For the umpteenth time, Denmark does not own Greenland and cannot agree to or decline to sell it, anymore than you can agree to or decline to sell of something you don't own. From the Act on Greenland Self-government: "(1) Decision regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland." Greenland cannot enter into international negotiations on its own. It would first have to secede from Denmark.

J. Farmer said...

@Nancy Reyes:

the Danish political establishment personally ridiculed the president, and then they expect him to play nice?

Frederiksen made two public comments on the matter, both quite mild, and neither mentioned Trump's name, so the phrase "personally ridiculed the president" is inaccurate. The move to cancel the meeting does not demonstrate strength or resolve but rather pettiness and insecurity.

Ken B said...

Farmer
In your response to me you quote me saying that first Greenland and Denmark would have to constitutionally separate. You quote me saying that. Then you say I am wrong, because first they would have to follow their constitutional separation process.
WTF?

J. Farmer said...

@Phidippus:

Not very, just true.

Calling the prospect of Denmark selling Greenland "absurd" is equally true.

Well, if you dish it out, you have to be able to take it.

That's precisely the point I am making about Trump.

Trump seems to be able to take it just fine.

Cancelling a meeting with an ally because you feel personally slighted over a proposal that does not make sense to begin with is not taking it "just fine." It's petulant and childish.

J. Farmer said...

Ken B:

WTF?

My apologies. I misread that initially as, " The Greenlanders and the Danes are constitutionally separate." I read "separate" as an adjective rather than a verb.

I generally agree that that would be the order of events, as I wrote two days ago in the last post on the topic: "Denmark has no real authority to 'sell' Greenland given that it recognizes its inhabitants as having a right to national self-determination. For any such deal to actually happen, Greenland would first have to pursue complete independence from Denmark and then become a kind of unincorporated territory of the United States."

But in that case, the initiative would have to originate in Greenland. There would be no point in discussing the matter with Denmark, since they would have no role to play in the matter.

Ken B said...

Farmer
Accepted. It made no sense, I was worried Fernandistein hacked your account.

You last sentence shows what I now suspect is the cunning in Trump's ploy. He has provoked the left to reflexively embrace the idea that *of course it’s up to the Danes*. Couldn’t get more imperialist than that if you suggested renaming Australia to Rhodesia (now the name is available).

J. Farmer said...

@Ken B:

You last sentence shows what I now suspect is the cunning in Trump's ploy. He has provoked the left to reflexively embrace the idea that *of course it’s up to the Danes*. Couldn’t get more imperialist than that if you suggested renaming Australia to Rhodesia (now the name is available).

But it's Trump who seemed to embrace that imperialist notion. Both he and Kudlow stated that Denmark "owns" Greenland. It's Trump's critics who have pointed out that it would be hope to the Greenlanders, and not the Danes. Earlier you said that Trump "has tricked the left into defending the last bastion of European Imperialism," but stating the Denmark has no capacity to sell Greenland is not defending imperialism. I am also not sure what "last bastion" means, considering that the French, Portuguese, British, Spanish, and Dutch all maintain a number of overseas territories.

The Godfather said...

When I was practicing real estate law, I would have interpreted the Danish comments as meaning, Make me an offer.

If I were a Greenlander, I think I would be saying, Why are you listening to those fools in Denmark?

Ken B said...

Farmer
Are you the Left today?
I have seen repeated reactions that are premised on the idea that the Danes could — that is have the right — decide.

And these f*cking Danes are not the nice guys they pretend to be!
https://www.businessinsider.com/canada-and-denmark-whiskey-war-over-hans-island-2016-1/
Bastards!!

🇨🇦

J. Farmer said...

@Ken B:

I have seen repeated reactions that are premised on the idea that the Danes could — that is have the right — decide.

I myself have not seen such reactions, though of course that does not mean they are not out there. Mostly what I've seen from Trump's opponents is simple mockery and dismissal, but that's par for the course at this point.

Jaq said...

"If I were a Greenlander, I think I would be saying, Why are you listening to those fools in Denmark?”

I’d like to be a fly on the wall who understood Norse in a pub in Greenland right now. I am not talking about the papers. I would sooner believe a taxi driver than a newspaper on an issue like this.

JamesB.BKK said...

The Danes could trade it for further security blanket protection from forces directed by the United States central government, and maybe take a royalty on profits. It would be a solid deal. Currently, they are letting it waste.

Fen said...

Farmer: My apologies.

Well would you look at that.

Fen said...

She seems to me to have been a bit rude.

Farmer: Trump is going to complain about someone seeming "a bit rude?" Just last month, he called the UK ambassador to the US "wacky," a "very stupid guy," and a "pompous fool." How diplomatic is that language?

You sure do leave out alot. Like the fact that the pompous fool was the instigator, that Trump was simply responding to the the diplomat's very undiplomatic remarks.

These kinds of posts are why I find your intellectual integrity suspect. You are dishonest.

Narayanan said...

How does this roil DaneAmerican voting for 2020?

Narayanan said...

The United States abandoned its territorial claims in the area in 1917 in connection with the purchase of the Virgin Islands. Denmark assumed control of the village in 1937.

From Wikipedia.

Island swapping by Uncle Sam oooh.

JamesB.BKK said...

Wondering what the Danes were up to in ca. 1619, and before.

JamesB.BKK said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JamesB.BKK said...

But he has tricked the left into defending the last bastion of European Imperialism.

Tricky activity to use the same tactics as the left uses. It reads as if you are saying that Denmark's possession / arrangement with respect to Greenland is imperialism and that there is something wrong with it. Maybe for more fun Trump should go after France about Reunion or Tahiti first? Obama tried to stoke that fire wrt an island off of Argentina's coast and blundered spectacularly calling it "The Maldives" and that fool renamed a mountain in the Cordilleras.

Could just be that Trump was considering a potential policy goal and one of the clowns in the White House in breach of his duties of confidentiality told one of the clowns in "The Press" who thought with his clownlike editors that it would be fun to make it a focus of attention. Now, how about Imperial Canada's claim of control over Quebec?

JamesB.BKK said...

"For the umpteenth time, Denmark does not own Greenland and cannot agree to or decline to sell it, anymore than you can agree to or decline to sell of something you don't own. From the Act on Greenland Self-government: ..."

Would the United States Government (and the State of New York and Commonwealth of Massachusetts) give more credence to that than it (and they) did with respect to the prohibitions affecting it (and them) regarding, among others, the States of Tennessee, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Texas, the Carolinas, and the Commonwealths of Virginia and Kentucky?

JamesB.BKK said...

About sales of property one does not believe one owns, which some might consider to be fraud:

"Minuit is credited with purchasing the island of Manhattan from the Native Americans in exchange for traded goods valued at 60 guilders. According to the writer Nathaniel Benchley, Minuit conducted the transaction with Seyseys, chief of the Canarsees, who were only too happy to accept valuable merchandise in exchange for an island that was actually mostly controlled by the Weckquaesgeeks."

It is good that Europeans brought title registries and the wheel.

J. Farmer said...

@Fen:

You sure do leave out alot. Like the fact that the pompous fool was the instigator, that Trump was simply responding to the the diplomat's very undiplomatic remarks.

Instigator? The comments were contained in a leaked diplomatic cable. Ambassadors are not expected to be diplomatic in their communique with their home countries but to give their unvarnished views. That’s the same reason the US was embarrassed when Wikileaks published the trove of leaked cables.

J. Farmer said...

p.s. I’m still waiting for you to provide a source for your claim that China has repeatedly approached Denmark about buying Greenland.

Kevin said...

The Danish government says it can't sell Greenland, the Greenlandic government says Denmark can't sell Greenland, and Danish law says that Denmark cannot sell Greenland. If you think I've gotten this issue wrong, please provide a counterargument.

I'll use your own post: "The agreement shall, furthermore, be concluded with the consent of the Folketing. (4) Independence for Greenland shall imply that Greenland assumes sovereignty over the Greenland territory."

First, it says right there this can only happen with the consent of the Danish Parliament. Denmark may not be able to"sell" Greenland to the US on its own, but Greenland can't go anywhere without the consent of the Danes.

You've gotten so wrapped up in one point that you've overlooked the other.

Again, since the Danes could scuttle any deal Trump might work out with the people of Greenland, it's wise to get their issues handled before going further.

Much like China had to be involved in any North Korea strategy, even though NK is a sovereign nation.

Before you go to the person who can say yes, you often have to go to all the people who can say no.

Kevin said...

It's funny that people think Trump is just walking around spouting off shit.

They can't believe that Trump, with the vast resources at his disposal, didn't ask to be briefed on Greenland's situation and exactly what avenues are available to achieve his objective.

They assume he doesn't know what he's talking about, because Denmark can't "sell" Greenland like he's saying.

But "sell" is a simplification of a very complex process - the kind of process Trump doesn't go around explaining because it would bore everyone to death and seem way too complex to ever happen.

Explaining the entire process is an Obama move.

Trump is a real estate person. These transactions often complicated - the best ones even more so - which is why it takes people with great skill to get them done.

And having done many he knows the thing you must do is find the right people and let them know you are serious about dealing with all the issues which are sure to arise.

Without that, nothing gets out of the starting gate.

"Sell Greenland" immediately says two things. First, it says he's offering compensation. Second, it says to the people of Denmark, who ultimately control what happens in the Danish Parliament, "Hey, what might you do with the extra money?"

This is real estate thinking, not traditional statecraft.

And in this situation it's probably more valid.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

First, it says right there this can only happen with the consent of the Danish Parliament. Denmark may not be able to"sell" Greenland to the US on its own, but Greenland can't go anywhere without the consent of the Danes.

That is a procedural point. The entire point of granting Greenland greater auntonomy and devolution of domestic affairs was a response to secessionist impulses within Greenland. We have seen the same dynamic play out regarding the much more recent Scottish referendum on independence.

You've gotten so wrapped up in one point that you've overlooked the other.

I have not overlooked it. It was not germane to my point. My point was very simple: Denmark cannot "sell" Greenland. Trump and Kudlow's statements that Denmark "owns" Greenland are inaccurate.

Again, since the Danes could scuttle any deal Trump might work out with the people of Greenland, it's wise to get their issues handled before going further.

Trump cannot work out any deal with the people of Greenland. If Greenland wanted to pursue such an arrangement, it would need to secede from Denmark. It would create a constitutional crisis if Denmark attempted to block secession. What, for example, would London have done if the Scottish referendum was a victory for leave?

They can't believe that Trump, with the vast resources at his disposal, didn't ask to be briefed on Greenland's situation and exactly what avenues are available to achieve his objective.

Count me among those people. Trump's own statements suggest he does not understand the dynamics at play. Impulsivity and shooting from the hip aren't Trump attributes?

But "sell" is a simplification of a very complex process - the kind of process Trump doesn't go around explaining because it would bore everyone to death and seem way too complex to ever happen.

I do not doubt that you can reverse engineer Trump's actions and provide ex post facto justification for them. He's playing 4-D chess!

This is real estate thinking, not traditional statecraft.

And in this situation it's probably more valid.


I'll be you $5,000 absolutely nothing comes of this. If you're interested, we can exchange contact information, and I'll setup an escrow account.

Kevin said...

Count me among those people.

Oh, so this was never about Greenland.

You're just the new Chuck.

Got it.

How disappointing.

J. Farmer said...

@Kevin:

Oh, so this was never about Greenland.

You're just the new Chuck.

Got it.

How disappointing.


Devastating counterargument, Kevin.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 309 of 309   Newer› Newest»