Trump wants to buy Greenland

[Aexodus]

I don’t really see the big problem with buying Greendland? I just have no idea why America would want to do so.

[Kyriakos]

I doubt this is serious ^_^

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Greenland has 60000 inhabitants. I see a problem with their self determination right, if they could simply be sold by Denmark to USA.

The times of region trade at costs of natives are over.

[Aexodus]

Greenland has 60000 inhabitants. I see a problem with their self determination right, if they could simply be sold by Denmark to USA.

What makes you think they chose to be part of Denmark. Just saying, we don’t know what they want.

The times of region trade at costs of natives are over.

Why? What would it cost Greenlanders? You seem to be couching the discussion around a theme of imperialism.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I wonder if anyone in the media will do a deep dive on the issue and find out which Fox segment implanted the idea to buy Greenland into the oatmeal between Trump’s ears.


Americans have gotten so used to reverse engineering Trump’s random impulses into something vaguely rational that we almost do it automatically now. Buying Greenland is no exception. Yes, Greenland has natural resources (?) Yes, it would allow the US to permanently ensure Russian or Chinese interests never gain a foothold there. I am fairly confident neither of those prompted Trump’s suggestion, and we may never know what or who did.


The long term damage of his incoherent ramblings has already manifested in the form of ever diminishing US influence abroad, and will reverberate long after he leaves office.

[athanaric]

Greenland has 60000 inhabitants. I see a problem with their self determination right, if they could simply be sold by Denmark to USA.

If they held a vote to be independent from Denmark (which would be a foolish move, unless they were planning to join another country), and then held another vote about joining the US, it would be legitimate. It all hinges on what they want.

The times of region trade at costs of natives are over.

Lol no. That's wishful thinking. The only thing that's changed is that it isn't European imperial powers doing the region trading. But there are more than enough other parties around, or emerging.

[Cookiegod]

First of all Danish debt fluctuates and is totally susceptible to trade volatility.
Secondly, Puerto Rico gets plenty of money from the US. The problem there is local corruption.
Third, try getting too close to Russia or China and see what happens. The US will not and should not tolerate any threats to security. Just sayin'.

First of all, we're talking about ~1% of Danish GDP. The US has how much? Oh right. And you're not even remotely close to at least getting even. So saying the US could afford it but the Danes can't is ridiculous.

Secondly, corruption is endemic across the US, and Greenland receives from the Danish Government more than thrice the amount per capita than Puerto Rico does from the federal government.

Third, oh so that's why people love the US so much.

Also, it was only 102 years ago that Denmark sold the Danish West Indies to America for $25 million ($489 million adjusted for inflation). You may know these islands as the US Virgin Islands.

Fun fact: I know a guy whose grandfather was born on those islands the very day it was handed over to the US. He received both citisenships as a result.

I suspect that for the Greenlanders, remaining with Denmark is the best choice. Not only because it's the "devil they know", but also because it's relatively small and doesn't have the overwhelming presence a larger colonial overlord might have.
That said, selling it to the US (if that were possible) might be the second or third best option for Greenland, Denmark, and Europe. I wouldn't recommend selling it to Russia, and giving any inch of it to the Chinese is obviously retarded. And if you give it to Canada, you might as well give it to China directly (also, why would Canada need even more empty frozen space? It's already too big for its own good).

Again: Selling it is not even possible. If anything Greenland could declare independence and either try to stay independent or based on their wishes join any country they'd like.

And Denmark is not the "devil they know", being part of the kingdom has 0 downsides to them. They even get to do much of their own foreign policy. It annoys me that we continue to pay for that place when the people there (not so much the people, more like their political elite) doesn't want to commit to Denmark. If you don't want to be part of Denmark, then fine. Just leave.

I don’t really see the big problem with buying Greendland? I just have no idea why America would want to do so.

Would you see a big problem with some country buying your hometown? Even though I have no idea why someone would want to.

What makes you think they chose to be part of Denmark. Just saying, we don’t know what they want.

Yeah, it's not like they're capable of speech and writing, have internet and most importantly, have had ample opportunity to declare independence for decades now, but decided to instead renegotiate their autonomy in 2009.

Why? What would it cost Greenlanders?

Like much of their privileges, much of the money they receive, since the US isn't likely to invest more than the Greenlanders already receive, much of the trade would have to be redirected to the US and trade to many countries simply cut off. To name just a few examples, and not mentioning the fact that there's no guessing what crap the US can cook up there. The existing US military bases and nukes there leak enough radioactivity as it is.

You seem to be couching the discussion around a theme of imperialism.

Because that's what it would be. People in today's age aren't cattle to be sold. Otherwise I'd recommend the UK to sell the Falklands and Gibraltar pronto. The UN guarantees the right of the selfdetermination of people. UK might not care. Denmark does. Danish-Greenlandish laws and agreements also don't give the Danes any legitimacy to negotiate such a thing.

If they held a vote to be independent from Denmark (which would be a foolish move, unless they were planning to join another country), and then held another vote about joining the US, it would be legitimate. It all hinges on what they want.

Exactly. And if they wanted to, we'd be perfectly fine with it. They sure as hell wouldn't join the US though, especially since that'd cost them independence. China would be cut off entirely, and western sanctions on Russia that have made Greenland some extra money because it doesn't participate would be forced on them as well. To go from a deal with no downside to one with many downsides.

Lol no. That's wishful thinking. The only thing that's changed is that it isn't European imperial powers doing the region trading. But there are more than enough other parties around, or emerging.

Oh some European powers still do like to disrespect the natives wishes.

[Roma_Victrix]

With all that polar ice melting and Greenland's ancient glaciers turning into rushing rivers, Trump undoubtedly wants to build some Atlantic Ocean view casinos as rest stops for cruise lines in warm waters. The flooding will also wash away all the pesky natives who would otherwise rise up after Denmark sells Greenland to the Trump Organization. Hurrah for global warming!

All kidding aside, this is just a joke that will never happen. There's not going to be a referendum and Greenland isn't going anywhere, certainly not the way of Guam or Puerto Rico as an overseas territory of the US. It would be funny, in a silly hypothetical reality, if Greenland immediately became a state, because they would undoubtedly vote Democrat as lefty leaning Europe types and help kick Trump's Republic party out of office. Oops!

[Cookiegod]

Oh those 2 mandates each from Greenland and Færøer are always guaranteed left even as it's part of Denmark.

[athanaric]

Third, oh so that's why people love the US so much.

I do agree about US moral grandstanding and military posturing, but I'd rather see the place in American than in Chinese or Russian hands. And the Russians and Chinese have an even worse environmental track record than the Yanks, particularly when it comes to nuclear stuff.

And Denmark is not the "devil they know", being part of the kingdom has 0 downsides to them.

From the subjective perspective of some locals, maybe it is. People are often sentimental about "muh independence", even if it's independence from a comparatively benign power like Denmark or Spain.

Oh some European powers still do like to disrespect the natives wishes.

Yeah, especially the wishes of native Europeans.

With all that polar ice melting and Greenland's ancient glaciers turning into rushing rivers, Trump undoubtedly wants to build some Atlantic Ocean view casinos as rest stops for cruise lines in warm waters. The flooding will also wash away all the pesky natives who would otherwise rise up after Denmark sells Greenland to the Trump Organization. Hurrah for global warming!

Forget casinos (although the local Eskimos might have to open some, in order to keep with US traditions), golf courses is where it's at. Like, all of Greenland is going to be hills covered in grass. Can you imagine the number of Trump golf courses that could be built on that island? You could even do night golfing for half of the year. Plus, there's fewer pesky natives to contend with, compared to Scotland where Trump and his resorts have been unpopular for decades.

[Cookiegod]

Did I miss something? Have Russia and/or China offered to buy Greenland? Is that even a remote possibility?! Then why keep people talking about it?

[Swiss Army Cheese]

I don’t really see the big problem with buying Greendland? I just have no idea why America would want to do so.

America doesn't have enough frozen space. They're currently being outdone by Russia and Canada

.

Surprised no one has done a "Little does Trump know, Iceland's the habbitable one" joke here.

[athanaric]

Did I miss something? Have Russia and/or China offered to buy Greenland? Is that even a remote possibility?! Then why keep people talking about it?

They'll try to get their hands on the region, one way or another. Plus someone mentioned Canada earlier, and Canada is having a big problem with Chinese colonization.

[conon394]

Well a bit late. But my understanding is since in Danish law Greenland is no longer a colonial possession so they can't really sell it anyway. Beyond that it seems to me locals have to opt for the best deal. I mean if they really think Trump-esq polices will hold in the US and their is a bonanza of resources to be extracted, and care not about the environment than sure jumping to the US as some sort of incorporated territory might make sense. Assuming they will retain rights and the money made will managed as effectively as the Alaska permanent fund or the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. But that seems likely to some extent under Denmark anyway. And more global warming melt will likely draw the US back for more base leasing anyway a potential dollar source with so much cold war secrecy.

In any case if the US did buy Greenland it be interesting to do a wheat equivalent price adjustment to see if Erik the reds land deal was really a good investment - "see I told you 'Greenland would bring in the marks..."

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

I am suprised to see so many people are okey with Selling Grønland to USA, we don't really own it.... And it sounds pretty ed up to sell a people to USA...

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

... Why? What would it cost Greenlanders? ...

What it could cost Greenlanders?

Their natural environment could be in danger because of the pro business environmental policy of the Trump government:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

National monuments


In April 2017, President Trump directed the Department of the Interior to review 27 monuments of at least 100,000 acres (40,000 ha) in size through Executive Order 13792.^[102] The vast majority of the lands under review were set aside by President Obama.^[103]
In June 2017, Zinke issued an interim report as requested in the executive order. He proposed a scaling back of the Bears Ears National Monument.^[104][105] In August 2017, Zinke delivered a final report to Trump. The report called for the reduction of Bears Ears (established by Obama - 2016), Cascade–Siskiyou (Clinton - 2000), Gold Butte (Obama - 2016), Grand Staircase-Escalante (Clinton - 1996), Pacific Remote Islands Marine (Bush - 2006), and Rose Atoll Marine (Bush - 2009).^[106]
Zinke's recommendations have been met with both approval and criticisms by state lawmakers, environmentalists, and tribal governments. In particular, Native Americans in the Southwest were fundamental in getting the Bears Ears designated as a national monument. Members of the Navajo tribe were integral to the monument's passage. A tribal spokesperson stated that a reduction in the size of the Bear's Ears Monument would be “an attack on a significant part of the foundation of American conservation law.” A Navajo elder commented, “It was always and has been a spiritual place. It’s the white people that came and tried to nullify that. And we had to fight to get it — to play the game the Western way, the government way, to have it reestablished as a national monument, as a sacred place for us. Now there is a stupid guy trying to take it away.” A different opinion is offered by a Republican Utah state representative who sees a shrinking of the Bears Ears Monument as a victory over federal restrictions over mining and animal grazing. “When you turn the management over to the tree-huggers, the bird and bunny lovers and the rock lickers, you turn your heritage over."^[103]
Offshore drilling

In January 2018, the Interior Department announced plans to allow drilling in nearly all U.S. waters. This would be the largest expansion of offshore oil and gas leasing ever proposed, and includes regions that were long off-limits to development and more than 100 million acres in the Arctic and the Eastern Seaboard, regions that President Obama had placed under a drilling moratorium.^[6]
Opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling

The Trump administration tax bill passed in December 2017 includes a provision introduced by Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski that requires Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to approve at least two lease sales for drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Scientists, environmentalists and former Interior Department officials have warned that fossil fuel extraction in the ANWR could harm the landscape and the species that live there. Speaking in February 2018, Trump said he had little interest in opening the refuge to drilling until a friend told him Republicans have been trying to open it to drilling for decades. “After that I said, ‘Oh, make sure that’s in the [tax] bill.' I really didn’t care about it, and then when I heard that everybody wanted it — for 40 years they’ve been trying to get it approved — I said, ‘Make sure you don’t lose ANWR.’”^[107][108]
Privatization of Native American reservations

Within the Interior Department, the Bureau of Indian Affairs handles some federal relations with Native Americans. Native American reservations are estimated to contain about a fifth of the nation’s oil and gas, along with vast coal reserves. In December 2016, a Trump advisory group put forth a plan to privatize Native American reservations to open them up to drilling and mining. Many Native Americans view such efforts as a violation of tribal self-determination and culture.^[13][109]
Trump’s transition team commissioned a Native American coalition to draw up a list of proposals to guide his Indian policy. According to a Reuters investigative report, "The backgrounds of the coalition’s leadership are one sign of its pro-drilling bent. At least three of four chair-level members have links to the oil industry."^[13]
Endangered species threats

In February 2018, Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke presented their recommendation for the 2019 budget. Their proposed budget does not grant any funding for state efforts for the recovery of endangered species. The Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, a program authorized by the Endangered Species Act, supports conservation planning, habitat restoration, land acquisition, research, and education. To qualify for funding, a state or territory must put up at least 25 percent of a project's cost. The administration justifies the budget change saying that it “is not requesting funding for these activities in order to support higher priorities.”^[110]
A senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity said gutting the fund would push endangered species toward extinction. “This is especially damaging because [the] funding is often the backbone of state non-game programs and helps animals across the country, from bats and butterflies to salmon and grizzlies.” The former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who served during Obama's time in office said, “We were very proud of the record we set, that we had recovered and delisted more species than all previous administrations combined. And that didn’t happen by accident. It happened because we applied the resources to get species over that last mile.”^[110]
In July 2018, more than two dozen pieces of "legislation, policy initiatives and amendments designed to weaken" the Endangered Species Act were introduced or voted on by congress. Former oil lobbyist David Bernhardt, the deputy interior secretary, has led the push to review the endangered species act. Utah Republican representative Rob Bishop, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said in a statement. “We’re all aware that the Endangered Species Act hasn’t undergone any significant updates in over 40 years. Now is the time to modernize this antiquated law to simultaneously benefit both endangered species and the American people.” Bruce Babbitt, who served as the interior secretary under the Clinton administration, commented, "This is the first time that we’ve seen an orchestrated effort by the president, the Republican leaders in the House, the industry and the Interior Department all working together in a concentrated effort to eviscerate the act." Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists, commented, "I think the Endangered Species Act is endangered. They haven’t been able to do this for 20 years, but this looks like their one chance.”^[111]
In August 2019, the Trump Department of Interior announced a list of major changes to the Endangered Species Act. Industry groups and Republican lawmakers applauded the proposed changes while critics expressed concerns as they are coming at a time of crisis when as many as 1 million plant and animal species are at risk of extinction. Numerous state attorneys general and environmental groups have said that they will sue the administration over the changes, alleging they are illegal because they're not grounded in scientific evidence.<sup>[112]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviro...ge_to_drilling</sup>

Not to talk that in case of a US buy of Greenland we will see more US Basis there.

Cold War US Basis are already a enviromental problem:

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-...where-49209510

[Common Soldier]

Why shouldn't Trump buy Greenland if he can? If Climate Change is real, Greenland will be a great investment, and will compensate for land lost due to flooding as a result of flobal warming, and according to some, the time Greenland will be free of glaciers might not be that far off.

And with Greenland having a small population, no forest to hide in, it should be easy to control. Plus most ofnthr land in the interior the name Ives have nonclaim on, since their ancestors never occupied it. Seems to me that if Trump can get Denmark to sell, it would be a great investment, even better than Alaska.

It is worth a shot to see if Denmark will sell, there is no harm in at least asking. The Danes can just say no.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I am suprised to see so many people are okey with Selling Grønland to USA, we don't really own it.... And it sounds pretty ed up to sell a people to USA...

Difference in legal structures and technicalities aside, why is being a Danish “territory” more or less moral than being a US “territory?” Denmark/Norway colonized the region originally; it’s not as though Greenlanders voted to join Denmark/Norway. Again, I’m no lawyer, but I can’t imagine any reason a fully independent Greenland wouldn’t be hypothetically able to work out the exact same arrangement they have with Denmark as a condition of agreeing to become a US territory. Based solely on What I see in this thread, it seems the only people who have a problem with the very concept of Greenland joining the US are Danes who feel a wounded sense of national pride, but would rather not discuss the issue in such terms.

[Diocle]

Americans have already bought a territory in Greenland and they have built there a military base, they just want to extend the business.



source

[athanaric]

Difference in legal structures and technicalities aside, why is being a Danish “territory” more or less moral than being a US “territory?” Denmark/Norway colonized the region originally; it’s not as though Greenlanders voted to join Denmark/Norway.

Not sure which time period yo're referring to, but the Norse settled in SW Greenland at a time when it was uninhabited, during the later stages of the Viking Age. So in today's era of fashionable ethnic grievances (the more things change, the more they stay the same...), Norway and Iceland would actually have a decent claim to that part of the island. One of the main reasons why the Norse settlements of Greenland were abandoned is an increase in Eskimo raids, those Eskimos being the ancestors of the Kalaallit we know today as "Greenlanders" sensu stricto. Their presence on the island is not very old, and (coming from the NW) they also seem to have replaced a previous Eskimo-like population living in other regions, along with the Norse inhabitants. Of course, the Royal Danish presence is younger than that still. But on the whole, it's not as clear cut a picture of "Europeans replacing/colonizing native peoples" as people seem to think it is.

Again, I’m no lawyer, but I can’t imagine any reason a fully independent Greenland wouldn’t be hypothetically able to work out the exact same arrangement they have with Denmark as a condition of agreeing to become a US territory.

Greenland has a very small population, smaller than many expat communities around the world. They are basically reliant on Denmark when it comes to infrastructure such as universities, i.e. places where you can train your own lawyers to help ward off a hostile takeover by a large colonial power.

Based solely on What I see in this thread, it seems the only people who have a problem with the very concept of Greenland joining the US are Danes who feel a wounded sense of national pride, but would rather not discuss the issue in such terms.

Yeah, because there are probably no Eskimos on this particular forum. Although who knows, one of the "Danes" you cite might be one of them?