I agree with the article that the purchase of Greenland would be a strategic coup for the USA, and I’m kinda surprised that the Danes and Greenlanders didn’t want to hear what Trump had to say.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Trump’s strategy. That deal could be a win-win-win for Greenland, Denmark and the USA. He just screwed up the deal on the human side, as usual, with his bungling, rants and insults.
In the position of the USA, the deal should be doable. Here’s what you offer: in addition to whatever amount is agreed by Denmark, the USA offers a quarter of a million dollars, tax-free to every single inhabitant of Greenland. That’s 14 billion dollars – chicken feed for the USA. Family of eight? You get two million dollars. You’re rich. No more spending your life on a boat in freezing temperatures, hoping for a good daily catch. You also get the status of US citizenship, which allows you to stay in Greenland or take your money to Des Moines or Orlando, if that suits you.
And if you don’t want to be an American, you can still take the money and move to Denmark, where a quarter of a million dollars will buy you a lot of pølser.
And not only that, but we really won’t disrupt your life very much if you choose to stay. Your prime minister just gets the new title of “governor,” and life goes on as before. We don’t care about your cod and salmon. We’re just interesting in building mines, naval stations, commercial ports, and research facilities. You can keep catching those cod, if you want, or you can sell your cod businesses to American entrepreneurs and head for South Beach. If you dread South Beach because you just can’t do without those freezing temperatures and fishing, you’ll find that a Minnesota winter is just as cold and wet and miserable as Greenland. And you may find Alaska very hospitable.
Let the Greenlanders vote on it. I’m pretty sure that offer will get a resounding “yes” from them. As for Denmark, they may talk big now, but if 95% of Greenlanders want the deal, Denmark will pretty much have to come to the table with an offer of some kind. At that point it’s just a matter of negotiation.
A bit of odd history with Greenland in relation to WWII. Did you know that the US actually interceded to keep the Brits from invading??
Greenland’s owner Denmark was captured early in the war, which put Greenland in a rather tight spot as technically being a NAZI controlled landmass rather close to North America. The UK was apparently all set to deal with this through the usual fashion when the US said absolutely not, and instead moved to promote and protect Greenland sovereignty — as long as the Greenlanders allowed extensive US bases and activity throughout their island, of course.
Cynicism aside, this seemed to work out rather well and post war Greenland moved to rejoin Denmark, albeit with much more internal control of their government, and continued very good relations with the US after that.
This reflects attitude in Greenland:
In Nuuk, members of the Inuit population sell everything from clothes and toys to reindeer antlers, the concerns are more mundane. Stine, a teenager hanging out with friends outside a shopping centre, said: “I’m worried about finding a job. Maybe the USA can help with that. But they can’t buy Greenland — that is so stupid.”
Ah yes, let’s return to the Dark Ages. Given Scoopy’s line of reasoning the US could have bought North Vietnam for less than the cost of the war. Why do I think the North Vietnamese wouldn’t have jumped at the Deal? The US has an arrogant attitude that everything is for sale. It may surprise them that it’s not.
Everything is for sale. But not everything is affordable.
If the USA made Greenland an offer and they accepted, what’s the harm? And if they refuse, what’s the harm in having asked?
If the USA wanted Vietnam (we didn’t) and the North Vietnamese were willing to sell it (they weren’t), that would have been worth a try, but that was an entirely different circumstance. On the other hand a tripartite deal between Greenland, Denmark and the USA could be a big win for all three parties. Why would that be medieval? I don’t remember a lot of sensible bargaining and negotiating in the Middle Ages.
Not only that …
Russia absolutely wants control of the Arctic. Denmark is not going to stand as a check against that, unless Putin fears a strongly-worded letter.
————
Having noted that … if Greenland wanted to make a deal (and I have no idea whether they would), they shouldn’t marry the first suitor who arrives. As I said, Russia wants the Arctic, and I’ll bet they would open up the checkbook to get it.
One little issue: you make everyone rich, there goes their economy. Know many millionaires who want to clean fish for a living? Or mop floors? Or work at grocery stores?
I assume most of them would either enjoy their wealth in Greenland or move to Denmark or the States. If enough Greenlanders stay, others will come to run their 7-Elevens and captain their fishing boats, just as immigrants will be necessary to work in the mining operations. There are always refugees in the world looking for a peaceful, secure life, even if it is cold.
It’s unlikely Denmark wouldn’t charge full market value for Denmark. Maybe rump could realize it would be a lot cheaper to just buy the resources that Greenland has as its needed.
Even though I find Trump disgusting, I have to agree with Scoopy here. The concept of the US buying territory is far from ridiculous. It’s how we got Alaska, and there was the Gadsden Purchase and of course the Louisiana Purchase. We may have gotten the US Virgin Islands (from Denmark?!) that way too.
It’s only the way that Trump went about it that made it a joke. The man is staggeringly incompetent at the things he is supposed to be good at.