Regarding Greenland, I'm sure some Greenlandish and Danish papers have already written about some of the information in this opinion piece by Robert Bridge, "American writer and journalist. Former Editor-in-Chief of The Moscow News, he is author of the book, 'Midnight in the American Empire,' released in 2013." For the record, because this story is probably not over at all, below are some quotes from the article:
Art of the steal? Trump’s ‘bid’ for Greenland screams American exceptionalism & foul play
Before I begin, I should mention that this debacle has one possible advantage of informing any remaining US geography teacher who thinks Greenland belongs to the US that this is not yet the case. What! Are you kidding? Not really, last year I worked with a group of people, and one of my colleagues had attended highschool in the US. She is highly gifted, Mensa range, very fast and accurate. During lunch hours we would chat, and on occasions she shared some experiences from her time as a highschool student in the US. Not surprising, besides participating in all sorts of after school activities, she quickly raised to straight As, except during one semester in geography where she got a B. The problem was that she had confronted her teacher who claimed Greenland was part of the US. The teacher did not accept that this was not the case and punished with a B - after all these years it was my impression the teacher had not been forgiven.
After this little observation, here is the story in the article:
Describing an effort to buy the world’s largest island as “just another real estate deal,” the US leader shocked the world with a brazenness that underscores everything that is wrong with the US today.
In Denmark there are a lot of people who have seen little wrong with the foreign policy of the US, they gladly have gone along with everything, just like the former Danish Gen Sec of Nato, but when I checked that corner of FB it was silent on this issue - wise but also telling.
“Essentially it’s a large real estate deal. A lot of things can be done. It’s hurting Denmark very badly because they're losing almost $700 million a year carrying it,” Trump told reporters this week, confirming the wild rumor. “So, they carry it at great loss, and strategically for the United States, it would be nice. And, we're a big ally of Denmark and we help Denmark, and we protect Denmark.”
It is as if he is saying, the Kingdom of Denmark (Denmark, Faroe Island and Greenland) has only a notional independence of the US, so why not translate that to some border changes?
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen responded drily to Trump’s overture, saying: “Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland. I strongly hope that this is not meant seriously.” If Frederiksen has been paying attention to the trajectory of US foreign policy of late, she is well aware that sovereignty means little to Washington anymore.
That last part few are saying at least not yet, but many well educated people have a clue and probably also the PM, it is just not talked so much about.
Of course there is a considerable difference between the possibility of buying some ‘real estate’ and outright pulverizing a sovereign state for no good reason. [T: This refers to the previous paragraph were Iraq 2003, Libya 2011 and Ukraine 2013 were mentioned] Yet Trump’s speculative interest in Greenland is not only a major insult to the people of Denmark, it carries the strong scent of danger. Indeed, the fact that this is not the first time Washington has shown an interest in owning Greenland should be of no small concern to Copenhagen. That is not to suggest, of course, that the Trump administration would consider a regime change operation anytime soon against Denmark, a fellow NATO member (albeit one that Trump has complained is behind on its membership dues, incidentally). Yet given Washington’s egregious global track record of late, nothing should be considered beyond the pale. After all, we are talking about an ‘exceptional’ nation here.
Then there is:
Although it is already well known that Harry S. Truman attempted to purchase Greenland in the aftermath of World War II, what is little known is that those efforts never really ceased. In May 2001, for example, National Review political reporter John J. Miller
wrote a piece on the strategic importance of Greenland and the importance of the US owning it. To say the opinions expressed are shocking would be an understatement.
Writing at a time when the Bush administration was already considering the idea of withdrawing from the ABM Treaty in order to give Washington the ability to build an early-warning radar system in, yes, Greenland, there was just one nagging little problem according to Miller.
The last part may need a correction, as the US already has a base in Greenland; it used to have two, both parts of the
Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. The
remaining base in Greenland began operation already in 1943. Today
it has a radar, that supposedly can detect something the size of a soccer ball being launched 5000 km away. Be warned, don't kick those balls too high! According to the article by Miller, mentioned above, the US had an idea of putting up a radar not in agreement with the ABM treaty. I don't know exactly what that would mean, or if it was rather an euphemism for a radar and a missile system.
The author claimed the statements of Miller were shocking, but I didn't want to take it his word for it and went into the achieve
NR Comment on NRO so you can make your own judgement about the history of this proposals, which Trump and his advisors probably are familiar with as is the Danish Government. What I also noticed was that the US toyed with the idea of buying Greenland back in the 1860'ies
when it bought Alaska from Russia in 1867.
A complete missile-defense plan.
By John J. Miller, NR’s national political reporter
May 7, 2001 9:30 a.m.
We will deploy [missile] defenses as soon as possible," said state-department official Lucas Fischer in late April.
Therefore, we believe that the ABM treaty will have to be replaced, eliminated, or changed in a fundamental way."
Replaced! Eliminated! These words, spoken just a few days before President Bush's speech on missile defense, provided the first concrete clue of a major U.S. policy shift on an issue of supreme importance to conservatives.
So why in the heck were they delivered in Denmark?
The answer is simple: Denmark plays a unique role in determining how the United States may deploy a missile-defense system, because it administers the frozen island of Greenland, where the Pentagon will very much want to place an early-warning radar that doesn't comply with current ABM-treaty specifications. If the Danes refuse to go along with this, the United States will have to search out less desirable locations.
It's a shame a piddling little country like Denmark might hold so much sway over such an important national-security decision for the United States. The Bush administration appears to be approaching the matter with an appropriate amount of diplomatic delicacy. But wouldn't it be nice if we didn't have to kowtow to the Danes at all?
There may be an alternative: Let's buy Greenland! It wouldn't be the first time the United States has purchased a big chunk of territory, of course. We bought Alaska from Russia in 1867, for the basement-bargain price of $7.2 million. Critics slammed the sale as "Seward's Folly," after Secretary of State William Seward, who negotiated the deal.
It's a little-known fact that Seward also was interested in Greenland. In 1946 — long after Seward's time — the United States seems to have made a formal offer of $100 million for Greenland, according to declassified documents discovered about ten years ago in the National Archives. The purpose of the acquisition, wrote a state-department official, was to provide the United States with "valuable bases from which to launch an air counteroffensive over the Arctic area in the event of attack." Secretary of State James Byrnes suggested the idea to the Danish foreign minister, but the record does not reveal whether the Danes formally turned down the offer or just ignored it.
Let's let them know the deal's still on the table, and that we think it's awfully rude of them not to have responded by now.
Buying Greenland will have plenty of critics, but so did the Alaska sale — and who in their right mind would want to rethink that transaction?
Greenland has a population of about 60,000 people, who have the island's 840,000 square miles all to themselves. They acquired home rule in 1979, so these folks probably would have to sign off on the sale in some capacity, too. Maybe we could promise them school choice.
Greenland's natural resources are — let us put it mildly — limited. The island got its name from Viking explorer Eric the Red in the 10th century; he wanted to encourage people to move there from Iceland. Wouldn't you rather live in Greenland than in Iceland? There is said to be a huge deposit of gold beneath the ice, but so far nobody has figured out how to extract it economically.
Like so much real estate, Greenland's value is its location: A lot of missile shots coming toward the United States from Russia would fly right over it, or at least near it. We will want to chart their precise trajectories so our missile defenses can blow them to pieces.
And if this whole global-warming thing turns out to be worse than expected, at least we'll all have a place to live.
After a quote from Miller, I took the whole article, Robert Bridge goes on to quote
Miller then had a masterstroke of genius, much like Donald Trump today: “Let's buy Greenland!” To bolster his argument he recalled how the US bought Alaska from the Russians in 1867, and Louisiana from the French in 1803. Then, almost as an afterthought, he wondered about the 60,000 inhabitants of the sprawling landmass, asking how they could be convinced to go along with the deal.
And the Danish West Indies, St Croix, St. John and St Thomas were sold in 1917, today known as the U.S. Virgin Islands and this has an interesting background as a treaty of sale was made with the US already in 1867, or as you may recall the same year the US bought Alaska. Let's take a look at event surrounding this treaty and the results. From
Salgstraktaten 1867 - Dansk Vestindien if I translate from Danish via Google there is, and leaving the handwritten treaty document aside. And when you read, you may notice the US was ready to pay USD 300,000 more for the tiny, tiny islands than they paid the Russians for all of Alaska! One almost wonder why. Anyhow here is the machine translation:
Sales Treaty 1867
From the middle of the 19th century, it started to go down in every way for the Danish West Indies, because the sugar from St. Croix was fiercely increasing competition in the world market, and because trade and shipping at St. Thomas waned.
The 1867 Sales Treaty, the first page.
The first page of the sales treaty. (National Archives).
American interest in the islands
After Denmark lost the war in 1864, Americans became afraid that Austria, as a kind of war booty, would take on the Danish West Indies. US Secretary of State William H. Seward therefore began negotiations with the Danish envoy Waldemar Raasløff in Washington. The Americans were very interested in acquiring the excellent port of St. Thomas to his naval fleet.
Seward and Raasløff were powerful and result-oriented men. In early 1867, they negotiated a battle treaty in place. It was signed at diplomatic level on October 24, 1867. The Americans would buy St. Thomas with St. Jan for $ 7.5 million in gold, on the other hand, they were not particularly interested in the agricultural island of St. Croix.
Referendum or not
Denmark had one wish, which we insisted on, although the Americans found it unnecessary. It was a referendum on the islands regarding the sale. Paragraph 1 of the Treaty stated: "His Majesty the King of Denmark, however, will not exert any coercion on the people and will therefore, as soon as possible, give it the opportunity to freely express his wishes with regard to this concession." The result of the referendum, which was carried out on St. Thomas and St. On January 9, 1868, 1244 voted for the sale and 22 against the sale of the two islands to the United States.
Time is running out
Denmark was thereby prepared to ratify (approve) the Treaty; but in the United States there were political concerns. Despite Raasløff's vigorous efforts, time went by without the Congress being able to decide. The last deadline for ratification expired in April 1870, without the Senate having agreed to the purchase of the colony. The race was thus run for this time.
Did you read that: "Denmark had one wish, which we insisted on,
although the Americans found it unnecessary. It was a referendum on the islands regarding the sale." It is as if now 150+ years later, the US Government and the US State Department has changed little, and that is as much a message to Russia, China, Iran, you name it. Robert Bridge continues quoting and commenting on Miller:
“They acquired home rule in 1979, so these folks probably would have to sign off on the sale in some capacity, too,” Miller surmised. “Maybe we could promise them school choice.” In case anybody missed it that was supposed to be a joke. And probably about as funny as Trump’s indecent proposal this week, which resembled the intrigues of a corporate raider who tosses out some heavy bait and then waits for a bite. Next thing you know quaint and quiet Greenland will be erupting in miniature protests from ‘separatists’ seeking independence from distant Denmark. Stranger things have certainly happened.
At the same time, there are other contributing factors that greatly complicate the picture. First, the Americans – and not necessarily the nicest ones – have already been stationed on the island since the 1950s at Thule Air Base, which operates an early-warning system for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). As already mentioned, this is a very serious real estate from a strategic point of view.
True, but there are many other options than just protests., And they could protest Chinese companies companies from investing and operating in Greenland.
The story gets better. Washington will certainly be looking to beef up its Arctic presence due to proven oil reserves there, which are a source of major competition among eight Arctic coastal states: Canada, Norway, Russia, Denmark (via Greenland), Iceland, Sweden, Finland and the US.
Not only oil, what about rare earth metals, that China, the greatest producer in the world, threaten to put a limit on as a result of the aggressive policies of the US. Here are some article and headlines about rare earths on Greenland:
From Financial Times posted one day ago, but behind a pay wall:
Subscribe to read | Financial Times from the search engine result I only have:
US enticed by Greenland's rare earth resources.
Search is on to secure supplies of critical metals that China dominates. Greenland is estimated
A scientific review of the possibilities published in
Geology and Ore: Exploration and Mining in Greenland
And from an Australian company that has the license to exploit the Kvanefjeld:
HOME
Greenland Minerals is an Australian company that has been operating in Greenland since 2007.
The Company’s primary focus is the development of the Kvanefjeld rare earth project in south west Greenland.
Greenland Minerals' Kvanefjeld Project is positioned to be a future cornerstone to global rare earth supply. When developed Kvanefjeld will be a large-scale, low-cost, long term supplier of products which are at the centre of the unfolding revolution in the efficient use of energy.
Another scientific review
Greenland's Unique Kvanefjeld Multi-element Rare Earth Project with an article written by an a scientist employed by the above company:
Greenland’s Unique Kvanefjeld Multi-element Rare Earth Project
Producing a suite of rare earth products
- Damien Krebs
- Greenland Minerals and Energy Ltd, Unit 6, 100 Railway Road, Subiaco, Western Australia, 6008, Australia
See also
Greenland shines brightly in the rare earth spotlight
Or this
94% rare earth recoveries for Greenland at Kvanefjeld
Going back to the list of US territories I found on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_territorial_acquisition that
The United States currently administers 16 territories as insular areas. If one looks into the history of these, one may learn how they were acquired.
The italicized islands are part of a territory dispute with
Colombia and are not included in the ISO designation of the USMOI.
Originally this post was just meant as a simple two minute job RT repost, that I then decided not knowing what I was getting into, to qualify and in the process discovered, to my own surprise, that the situation and the history behind it only substantiates the points brought up in the article.
