5 ms·

On which legal basis does he want to annex it? It belongs to the few thousands people that live there and want to be part of Denmark and Europe. There's reall

On which legal basis does he want to annex it? It belongs to the few thousands people that live there and want to be part of Denmark and Europe. There's really no claim to Greenland other than "it's close".

chgs 2y ago
Large swathes of the US think that “I want that” is an acceptable reason to take some land.
toast0 2y ago
Cash for land is a valid basis for annexation if you have a seller. Worked for Alaska and Lousiana.
- troad 2y ago
  As well as the Virgin Islands, which the US bought from Denmark as recently as 1917. The population of Greenland, per Wikipedia, is 56,583. The US could offer $50,000 to each man, woman, and child in Greenland. That's just over $2.8bn, which is pocket change for the US. The domestic (Greenlandic) politics around this could shift dramatically with such an offer. Throw in a few billion for Denmark (or a promise to continue to engage in NATO, or some other core interest of Denmark's) and you've probably got a sealed deal. I'm not saying that the Greenlanders should do this, but it's not nearly as unrealistic as some people seem to think. I'd be surprised if Trump actually followed up on any of this though.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    Denmark already subsidizes Greenland to around $10,000 per capita every year, so I think the Greenlanders would want a much higher offer.
    - troad 2y ago
      I'm talking about a cash in hand offer: a literal bank wire to every person in Greenland. Greenlandic politicians holding out for a different offer might find themselves voted out by people that rather like the idea of $50k in cash ($200k for a family of four, etc). Re subsidies, the US federal government subsidised local and state governments to the tune of $1.1 trillion in 2023 alone, with funding disproportionately directed to poorer regions (such as Greenland, were it to join). That's not including direct spending on Native Americans, for which most Greenlanders would also be eligible. With no special arrangements whatsoever, Greenland would likely see a comparable amount of subsidy in the US as it does today (and very likely much greater economic growth). In reality, some level of subsidy guarantee for a period of some years could easily be part of the accession negotiations. The real question isn't whether the US can afford Greenland - they can, many times over - the real question is the value of sovereignty (and I don't have the answer to that).
  - epolanski 2y ago
    You seriously believe you are going to buy Greenland with 50k per person and few billions for Denmark? That's a laughable offer. Believe it or not, Europeans are not on sale and they do not have that much sympathy or willingness to leave in the US. The few that do, do so for money they would not make in Europe. And money is not an issue for Greenlanders or Danes. They both do much better than people in many US states.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - mercutio2 2y ago
      Big fan of Denmark! But where in the world did you get the idea people in Denmark do “much better” than people in even the poorest US state? Median income in the poorest US state (Mississippi) is slightly higher than median income in Denmark, with much lower taxes even if you consider private health insurance a tax. A similar analysis of people in the poorest decile, after famously stingy US transfer payments, has disposable income for the poor in Mississippi coming out ahead of being poor in Denmark. I keep seeing folks make this argument. I would love to live in Denmark, but the reason to live there is not because of higher income. The US is just much, much richer than almost all of Europe (Switzerland and Luxembourg are the exceptions, not Denmark). It’s totally fine to value things like social cohesion, terrific bike infrastructure, and low income inequality. Those are areas Denmark beats the US. But income? It’s not even close.
      - HRSDK 2y ago
        No. That claim is at best highly misleading and, in most straightforward comparisons, simply false. Once you adjust for cost of living, tax structures, and what you actually “get” for your taxes (e.g., healthcare, education), Denmark’s median disposable income generally exceeds that of Mississippi. Moreover, Mississippi’s nominal median household income—while sometimes quoted in the same ballpark as Denmark’s median after-tax income—does not include the considerable out-of-pocket costs U.S. residents pay for things Danes receive through public services (healthcare, college, childcare, etc.).
  - rswail 2y ago
    Greenland's mineral resources are valued in the trillions. They can be exploited for the benefit of the residents, why on earth would they sell that for the undefined "benefits" of being an exploited territory of either the US or China?
    - troad 2y ago
      Good news, they get to keep all of them. In the US, natural resources belong to whoever owns the land, which would be the state government and the people of Greenland. Y'all can fear-monger about 'neo-colonialism', but the only nation that has ever exploited Greenland has been Denmark, what with its actual colonialism.
      - runarberg 2y ago
        > the only nation that has ever exploited Greenland has been Denmark While Denmark is by far the biggest colonial exploiter of Greenland (including genocidal ethnodemographic policies as late as the 1970s), it is by no means the only one. Other exploiters include Norway, who tried to annex East Greenland, Faroe Islands, who set up a failed factory in South Greenland, Iceland, who has been exploiting the fisheries around Greenland, and—the second worse offender—USA who set up an illegal military base in Pituffik, North Greenland, including forcefully relocating its residents to Qaanaaq, crash landing a bomber armed with a nuclear bomb, illegally using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs, polluting their surroundings, etc. PS. what you are describing as neo-colonialism, is just plain old fashion colonialism. Neo-colonialism is already a defined term which does not involve annexing territories. In fact its defining feature is exploitation without direct territorial control. In my opinion I wish it wasn’t called neo-colonialism, as it sort of diminishes the true horrors of European colonialism, and is not offering any meaningful distinction from the standard exploitation of global capitalism and neo-liberalism. PPS. It can be argued that Iceland’s and the Faroes’ exploitation of Greenland are neo-colonial in nature, as opposed to pure colonial, like Denmark’s, Norway’s and the USA’s.
        troad 2y ago
        Sure, that arch exploitative act of "trying to set up a factory" in an impoverished area. God forbid the locals get wages and a chance at better living conditions, when they can instead be forced to remain a living museum of impoverished hunter-gatherer cultures for the benefit of haughty Western scholars of neo-colonialism. /s "Illegally" using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs? Illegal under whose law? The illegitimate dictates of the occupying Danish government? You can point fingers and "what about?" all day long, but there's only state that colonised Greenland, and that is Denmark. Whereas the United States - while far from perfect - played a pivotal role in pressuring Europe to dismantle its rapacious colonial empires. Ultimately, the only people who have the right to decide the future and laws of Greenland are the people of Greenland. Whether that is independence, joining the Union as an equal, or continued colony status under Denmark is a matter for them and them alone. Unlike Denmark, the US isn't going to invade and annex Greenland.
  - johneth 2y ago
    > "recently" Over a century ago is not recently, even relatively.
- hampowder 2y ago
  It's not annexation if you're not appropriating it
  - toast0 2y ago
    It's annexation when you declare it's part of your permanent holdings. That's totally separate from if you are holding it by force or not. If an undiscovered, uninhabited island forms in international water, and some country claims it, if they want it in their permanent lands, they will annex it. There's not necessarily conflict or appropriation there. The issue with annexation of Crimea or the Golan Heights is that the holding of the territory is by force, and annexation is an expression of intent to keep it, rather than simply occupy it on an indefinite but assumed temporary basis.
emptybits 2y ago
If closeness was basis for a claim, Canada would like to have a word. Lol. No, we don't. It's not our way. Fun fact, though, you can walk from Canada to Greenland. When the winter sea ice freezes. I think it's about 20 or 30 km. This has cross-pollinated people, language, culture for thousands of years in the north.
- chgs 2y ago
  There’s a land border between Canada and Greenland on Hans Island
  - emptybits 2y ago
    I love it. I had not read that the two nations finally settled their friendly dispute just a few years ago! Previous to this, the Danish military would occasionally visit the island, leaving a flag, and a "Welcome to Denmark" sign and a bottle of Danish schnapps. Then the Canadian military would visit, plant their flag and a "Welcome to Canada" sign, and leave a bottle of Canadian whisky. Repeat. <3
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      See https://satwcomic.com/epic-battle https://satwcomic.com/epic-battle , then https://satwcomic.com/who-owns-greenlands-island https://satwcomic.com/who-owns-greenlands-island .
vasco 2y ago
Protection money / payment for defending them during Russian larger scale invasion of Europe? Just because the US can take it off them if they really want? What would Denmark do about it realistically? Why would he need a legal basis? It's clear he says stuff and then later we'll see.
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  Greenland is already protected by being in NATO, and the US Space Force has a base there. https://coffeeordie.com/us-military-greenland https://coffeeordie.com/us-military-greenland
  - vasco 2y ago
    For protecting Denmark. In the context of a hypothetical WWIII.
    - lmm 2y ago
      The base is clearly there to protect the US, not Denmark.
      - vasco 2y ago
        Denmark would give the USA Greenland as payment for the USA defending Denmark from a Russian attack of Denmark borders. More spelled out I can't.
        jodleif 2y ago
        No. That’s what NATO is for- and why the US is allowed to have a military presence there already.
        petre 2y ago
        Trump is talking out of his ass. The US doesn't need to annex Greenland, just set up a few bases there which can be more easily done. But even that has less benefits now than it had during the Cold War. If one wants to intercept hypersonic ICBMs they need satellites equipped with powerful lasers to zap'em. Kintetic interceptors in Greenland or space won't do.
arandomusername 2y ago
You don't need a legal basis. You only need more power.
throw16180339 2y ago
Trump and his supporters don't care about legalities. The only question is what they can get away with.
- vixen99 2y ago
  All people do what they can 'get away with' which a pejorative expression for saying that people attempt to do what they've decided to do. I would have thought that 'get away with' implies working within a current legal framework. But legality is just a formal description of that which has been decided in the past. It is not a permanent fixture.
- petre 2y ago
  That only encourages Putin in Ukraine and maybe other parts of Europe.
- rswail 2y ago
  Which is zero when it comes this sort of brainfart nonsense. The Panama Canal belongs to Panama, Greenland belongs to its residents via Denmark, Canada is a sovereign nation. Trump is just strutting, which is his standard position, pushing nonsense to his cult.
pyuser583 2y ago
“The United States includes Greenland as part of the Monroe Doctrine, which forbids European countries from holding American colonies. “The US used this justification during WWII to prevent Nazi control of Greenland.” I’m not saying this is valid reasoning. But if I needed to build a movement to reclaim Greenland from the perfidious Danes, it’s how I would do it.
throwaway2037 2y ago
> want to be part of Denmark and Europe Are you sure about that? They are working to become an independent country.
- hkt 2y ago
  Some might be, but independence is often contested and not necessarily a majority concern. Plus it'd be fairly odd to have independence then say "hey, let's let America buy us as a state"
  - rswail 2y ago
    If it was as an actual 51st state, with 2 Senators, full citizenship for all residents, etc, then maybe it would make sense. But that is not what the US is in any way offering. Trump wants a colony that can be exploited.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    As I understand it, most people want independence, but not at any cost. I think most people have economic concerns about independence, and want to diversify the economy in a way that makes them less economically dependent on Denmark before taking the last steps towards independent. Politically getting independent wouldn’t be that difficult, they would just need to pass some laws, finish drafting a constitution, and have national referendum. If they can make the economic case for it, I think there would probably be an overwhelming majority in favor.

chgs 2y ago

Large swathes of the US think that “I want that” is an acceptable reason to take some land.

toast0 2y ago

Cash for land is a valid basis for annexation if you have a seller. Worked for Alaska and Lousiana.

troad 2y ago
As well as the Virgin Islands, which the US bought from Denmark as recently as 1917. The population of Greenland, per Wikipedia, is 56,583. The US could offer $50,000 to each man, woman, and child in Greenland. That's just over $2.8bn, which is pocket change for the US. The domestic (Greenlandic) politics around this could shift dramatically with such an offer. Throw in a few billion for Denmark (or a promise to continue to engage in NATO, or some other core interest of Denmark's) and you've probably got a sealed deal. I'm not saying that the Greenlanders should do this, but it's not nearly as unrealistic as some people seem to think. I'd be surprised if Trump actually followed up on any of this though.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  Denmark already subsidizes Greenland to around $10,000 per capita every year, so I think the Greenlanders would want a much higher offer.
  - troad 2y ago
    I'm talking about a cash in hand offer: a literal bank wire to every person in Greenland. Greenlandic politicians holding out for a different offer might find themselves voted out by people that rather like the idea of $50k in cash ($200k for a family of four, etc). Re subsidies, the US federal government subsidised local and state governments to the tune of $1.1 trillion in 2023 alone, with funding disproportionately directed to poorer regions (such as Greenland, were it to join). That's not including direct spending on Native Americans, for which most Greenlanders would also be eligible. With no special arrangements whatsoever, Greenland would likely see a comparable amount of subsidy in the US as it does today (and very likely much greater economic growth). In reality, some level of subsidy guarantee for a period of some years could easily be part of the accession negotiations. The real question isn't whether the US can afford Greenland - they can, many times over - the real question is the value of sovereignty (and I don't have the answer to that).
- epolanski 2y ago
  You seriously believe you are going to buy Greenland with 50k per person and few billions for Denmark? That's a laughable offer. Believe it or not, Europeans are not on sale and they do not have that much sympathy or willingness to leave in the US. The few that do, do so for money they would not make in Europe. And money is not an issue for Greenlanders or Danes. They both do much better than people in many US states.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mercutio2 2y ago
    Big fan of Denmark! But where in the world did you get the idea people in Denmark do “much better” than people in even the poorest US state? Median income in the poorest US state (Mississippi) is slightly higher than median income in Denmark, with much lower taxes even if you consider private health insurance a tax. A similar analysis of people in the poorest decile, after famously stingy US transfer payments, has disposable income for the poor in Mississippi coming out ahead of being poor in Denmark. I keep seeing folks make this argument. I would love to live in Denmark, but the reason to live there is not because of higher income. The US is just much, much richer than almost all of Europe (Switzerland and Luxembourg are the exceptions, not Denmark). It’s totally fine to value things like social cohesion, terrific bike infrastructure, and low income inequality. Those are areas Denmark beats the US. But income? It’s not even close.
    - HRSDK 2y ago
      No. That claim is at best highly misleading and, in most straightforward comparisons, simply false. Once you adjust for cost of living, tax structures, and what you actually “get” for your taxes (e.g., healthcare, education), Denmark’s median disposable income generally exceeds that of Mississippi. Moreover, Mississippi’s nominal median household income—while sometimes quoted in the same ballpark as Denmark’s median after-tax income—does not include the considerable out-of-pocket costs U.S. residents pay for things Danes receive through public services (healthcare, college, childcare, etc.).
- rswail 2y ago
  Greenland's mineral resources are valued in the trillions. They can be exploited for the benefit of the residents, why on earth would they sell that for the undefined "benefits" of being an exploited territory of either the US or China?
  - troad 2y ago
    Good news, they get to keep all of them. In the US, natural resources belong to whoever owns the land, which would be the state government and the people of Greenland. Y'all can fear-monger about 'neo-colonialism', but the only nation that has ever exploited Greenland has been Denmark, what with its actual colonialism.
    - runarberg 2y ago
      > the only nation that has ever exploited Greenland has been Denmark While Denmark is by far the biggest colonial exploiter of Greenland (including genocidal ethnodemographic policies as late as the 1970s), it is by no means the only one. Other exploiters include Norway, who tried to annex East Greenland, Faroe Islands, who set up a failed factory in South Greenland, Iceland, who has been exploiting the fisheries around Greenland, and—the second worse offender—USA who set up an illegal military base in Pituffik, North Greenland, including forcefully relocating its residents to Qaanaaq, crash landing a bomber armed with a nuclear bomb, illegally using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs, polluting their surroundings, etc. PS. what you are describing as neo-colonialism, is just plain old fashion colonialism. Neo-colonialism is already a defined term which does not involve annexing territories. In fact its defining feature is exploitation without direct territorial control. In my opinion I wish it wasn’t called neo-colonialism, as it sort of diminishes the true horrors of European colonialism, and is not offering any meaningful distinction from the standard exploitation of global capitalism and neo-liberalism. PPS. It can be argued that Iceland’s and the Faroes’ exploitation of Greenland are neo-colonial in nature, as opposed to pure colonial, like Denmark’s, Norway’s and the USA’s.
      - troad 2y ago
        Sure, that arch exploitative act of "trying to set up a factory" in an impoverished area. God forbid the locals get wages and a chance at better living conditions, when they can instead be forced to remain a living museum of impoverished hunter-gatherer cultures for the benefit of haughty Western scholars of neo-colonialism. /s "Illegally" using Greenland to transport nuclear bombs? Illegal under whose law? The illegitimate dictates of the occupying Danish government? You can point fingers and "what about?" all day long, but there's only state that colonised Greenland, and that is Denmark. Whereas the United States - while far from perfect - played a pivotal role in pressuring Europe to dismantle its rapacious colonial empires. Ultimately, the only people who have the right to decide the future and laws of Greenland are the people of Greenland. Whether that is independence, joining the Union as an equal, or continued colony status under Denmark is a matter for them and them alone. Unlike Denmark, the US isn't going to invade and annex Greenland.
- johneth 2y ago
  > "recently" Over a century ago is not recently, even relatively.
hampowder 2y ago
It's not annexation if you're not appropriating it
- toast0 2y ago
  It's annexation when you declare it's part of your permanent holdings. That's totally separate from if you are holding it by force or not. If an undiscovered, uninhabited island forms in international water, and some country claims it, if they want it in their permanent lands, they will annex it. There's not necessarily conflict or appropriation there. The issue with annexation of Crimea or the Golan Heights is that the holding of the territory is by force, and annexation is an expression of intent to keep it, rather than simply occupy it on an indefinite but assumed temporary basis.

emptybits 2y ago

If closeness was basis for a claim, Canada would like to have a word. Lol. No, we don't. It's not our way. Fun fact, though, you can walk from Canada to Greenland. When the winter sea ice freezes. I think it's about 20 or 30 km. This has cross-pollinated people, language, culture for thousands of years in the north.

chgs 2y ago
There’s a land border between Canada and Greenland on Hans Island
- emptybits 2y ago
  I love it. I had not read that the two nations finally settled their friendly dispute just a few years ago! Previous to this, the Danish military would occasionally visit the island, leaving a flag, and a "Welcome to Denmark" sign and a bottle of Danish schnapps. Then the Canadian military would visit, plant their flag and a "Welcome to Canada" sign, and leave a bottle of Canadian whisky. Repeat. <3
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    See https://satwcomic.com/epic-battle https://satwcomic.com/epic-battle , then https://satwcomic.com/who-owns-greenlands-island https://satwcomic.com/who-owns-greenlands-island .

vasco 2y ago

Protection money / payment for defending them during Russian larger scale invasion of Europe? Just because the US can take it off them if they really want? What would Denmark do about it realistically? Why would he need a legal basis? It's clear he says stuff and then later we'll see.

BurningFrog 2y ago
Greenland is already protected by being in NATO, and the US Space Force has a base there. https://coffeeordie.com/us-military-greenland https://coffeeordie.com/us-military-greenland
- vasco 2y ago
  For protecting Denmark. In the context of a hypothetical WWIII.
  - lmm 2y ago
    The base is clearly there to protect the US, not Denmark.
    - vasco 2y ago
      Denmark would give the USA Greenland as payment for the USA defending Denmark from a Russian attack of Denmark borders. More spelled out I can't.
      - jodleif 2y ago
        No. That’s what NATO is for- and why the US is allowed to have a military presence there already.
      - petre 2y ago
        Trump is talking out of his ass. The US doesn't need to annex Greenland, just set up a few bases there which can be more easily done. But even that has less benefits now than it had during the Cold War. If one wants to intercept hypersonic ICBMs they need satellites equipped with powerful lasers to zap'em. Kintetic interceptors in Greenland or space won't do.

arandomusername 2y ago

You don't need a legal basis. You only need more power.

throw16180339 2y ago

Trump and his supporters don't care about legalities. The only question is what they can get away with.

vixen99 2y ago
All people do what they can 'get away with' which a pejorative expression for saying that people attempt to do what they've decided to do. I would have thought that 'get away with' implies working within a current legal framework. But legality is just a formal description of that which has been decided in the past. It is not a permanent fixture.
petre 2y ago
That only encourages Putin in Ukraine and maybe other parts of Europe.
rswail 2y ago
Which is zero when it comes this sort of brainfart nonsense. The Panama Canal belongs to Panama, Greenland belongs to its residents via Denmark, Canada is a sovereign nation. Trump is just strutting, which is his standard position, pushing nonsense to his cult.

pyuser583 2y ago

“The United States includes Greenland as part of the Monroe Doctrine, which forbids European countries from holding American colonies. “The US used this justification during WWII to prevent Nazi control of Greenland.” I’m not saying this is valid reasoning. But if I needed to build a movement to reclaim Greenland from the perfidious Danes, it’s how I would do it.

throwaway2037 2y ago

> want to be part of Denmark and Europe Are you sure about that? They are working to become an independent country.

hkt 2y ago
Some might be, but independence is often contested and not necessarily a majority concern. Plus it'd be fairly odd to have independence then say "hey, let's let America buy us as a state"
- rswail 2y ago
  If it was as an actual 51st state, with 2 Senators, full citizenship for all residents, etc, then maybe it would make sense. But that is not what the US is in any way offering. Trump wants a colony that can be exploited.
- runarberg 2y ago
  As I understand it, most people want independence, but not at any cost. I think most people have economic concerns about independence, and want to diversify the economy in a way that makes them less economically dependent on Denmark before taking the last steps towards independent. Politically getting independent wouldn’t be that difficult, they would just need to pass some laws, finish drafting a constitution, and have national referendum. If they can make the economic case for it, I think there would probably be an overwhelming majority in favor.