Greenland Says It’s Not On The Market

It’s almost as if they’re already American, though! The business of Greenland is business, its leadership emphasized after rumors swirled yesterday that Donald Trump wanted the US to acquire the island from Denmark. The third try is not the charm, Greenland residents told CNN, and not charming either:

President Donald Trump has on multiple occasions brought up buying Greenland from the Danish government and the White House counsel’s office has looked into the possibility, two sources told CNN on Thursday.
The island’s government, however, said in a statement Friday it’s not going to happen: “Greenland is not for sale.” …
“They tried to buy us in 1867, during Second World War, and now they are trying again,” local Kulusuk resident Bent Abeelsen told CNN. “Not gonna happen.”

Greenland’s foreign ministry adopted a more diplomatic tone in discouraging looky-loos. The government also issued a friendly statement thanking us for our interest, but no thanks:

#Greenland is rich in valuable resources such as minerals, the purest water and ice, fish stocks, seafood, renewable energy and is a new frontier for adventure tourism. We're open for business, not for sale❄️🗻🐳🦐🇬🇱 learn more about Greenland on: https://t.co/WulOi3beIC
— Greenland MFA 🇬🇱 (@GreenlandMFA) August 16, 2019

A Government of Greenland spokesperson reiterated that the island was not for sale when approached for comment by ABC News.
“We have a good cooperation with USA, and we see it as an expression of greater interest in investing in our country and the possibilities we offer,” the spokesperson said. “Of course, Greenland is not for sale. Because of the unofficial nature of the news, the Government of Greenland has no further comments.”

Greenland’s taking it with at least some good humor, and why not? When was the last time anyone read about Greenland as a vacation destination, or … as anything at all other than a frozen wasteland? This is the best PR boost their tourism and investment businesses might have imagined, even if it’s likely only to last a few days.

Not everyone was so flattered, however. NBC News went out and found several unhappy Greenlanders to balance out the government’s friendly-yet-firm message. They had to trawl Twitter to find most of the anger:

“I think we take it as a sick joke by a crazy president,” said Anna Kûitse Kúko, 63, who has lived in Tasiilaq nearly all her life and teaches English here. The remark was one of several from local residents who reacted with a mixture of mockery and anger to the reports, which originated with an article in The Wall Street Journal on Thursday. …
Online, locals mocked the idea of Trump’s interest in buying their homeland.
“Wow I didn’t know trump knew greenland existed,” tweeted Miki Fleischer from Nuuk, the nation’s capitol.
“Oh please God no,” wrote Emil Malta in response to the idea.
Another resident reposted a parody photo of a traditional Greenlandic landscape unexpectedly dwarfed by a glittering gold Trump Tower.

That was actually a parody by Hot Air pal Jon “Exjon” Gabriel, which deserves an honorable mention here:

Greenland in 10 years. pic.twitter.com/akqWowauyu
— jon gabriel (@exjon) August 15, 2019

Sadly, this now appears to be just another real-estate pipe dream, but it’s tough to imagine that anyone took the idea all that seriously in the first place, let alone Trump. He built his fortune on real estate, and it’s certainly believable that he’d bring that approach to dealing with American security, in which Greenland is an important piece. This sounds like spitballing at most — fun spitballing, perhaps, but spitballing nonetheless.

The Mexican gambit

So it is time to put the Mexican Squeeze on the Chicoms.

Recall the 26 people in Mexico that had their assets frozen, and using thw EO of December 2017.

The conversation would go something like this:

Trump negotiator: You are delaying and prevaricating on your end of the agreement:

DenmarK:....more prevaricating

Trump Negotiator: So as a gesture of your sincerity here is a list of 26 people that are involved in human trafficking and we would like you to freeze their assets within 24 hours

Denmark:...more prevaricating

Trump negotiator: Then we have a similar list of 260 people and we we will freeze their assets world wide...maybe your name is on it....do you feel lucky punk?

Danish negotiator: Yes Sir...please do it....its been so ordered straight away.

It’s no longer acceptable to buy or even conquer territory and people.

If, all things considered, the people of Greenland wanted independence or to affiliate with a different country, the honorable thing would be to work it out. As it is, the people of Greenland want to receive lots of welfare money and to have somebody else defend them.

Fewer and fewer of them are interested in living off whales and seals. More and more of them are re-locating to the capital. The local government is trying to keep the capital from becoming an over-grown slum. It distributes only a few additional lots to natives per year and encourages people to locate in one of the “larger” towns instead of the capital.

As for Denmark, it provides the welfare money, but it really doesn’t provide defense. It spends only 1.3 percent of GDP on defense, less than the NATO obligation of 2.0 percent. So, the defense of Greenland is really provided by the U.S. (as though that’s a surprise to anyone). Denmark should belly up to the bar and spend 2.0 percent on military.

(I would recommend spending the additional on Coast Guard-like units for guarding Greenland, and recruiting locally.)

Greenland is supposed to contain HUGE natural resources. But, so far, nothing much has been developed. The way the subsidy is supposed to go, any royalties are first to lower the subsidy paid to the local government by Denmark and, beyond that, given mostly to the local government. The local people are hoping that one day they will enjoy a bonanza. Like members of an American Indian tribe waiting for the day oil is discovered on their reservation. Actually, there’s nothing wrong with that.

As for being self-sufficient or even a state of the U.S., with 52,000 people its comparable in population to Bermuda, which isn’t self-governing. Bahamas has like 200,000 people, and is self-governing. But, this is not really true. Bahamas is a member of the Caribbean Community, which pools resources for self-defense (and other purposes). And, let’s face it, they continue to rely on the U.S. and the U.K., e.g., Grenada and the Falkland Islands during the 1980s.

In Canada, small numbers of people in Yukon and the rest of its northern tier preclude those places from being (full) provinces of Canada. Nevertheless, they have the status of territory, and that seems to work out. Each territory has one member of parliament, even though the population of these territories is small compared to the average population in districts (called ridings) in Canada’s southern tier.

For that matter, Greenland and the Faroe Islands (north of Scotland) each elect members of the Danish parliament (this also involves over-representation). All this works out pretty well.

My own idea for representation of territories is to attach them to States willing to have them for voting in federal elections, and for apportionment of members of Congress. For example, the U.S. Virgin Islands could vote as part of Florida, Guam as part of Alaska, the Northern Marianas as part of Hawaii, and D.C. as part of Maryland (voiding the 23rd Amendment). This way all of us vote in our federal elections, including those of us who live in territories.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.