Trump Eyes Greenland, and Europe Figures Its Best Bet Is a Negotiation - The New York Times

Trump Eyes Greenland, and Europe Figures Its Best Bet Is a Negotiation - The New York Times FM: John Whitbeck Transmitted above is a NEW YORK TIMES article on Greenland's future which I am circulating because I consider the sentence which I have bolded in the sixth paragraph to be spot-on true and highly important. It should be evident that Trump's determination to "own" Greenland has no more to do with "national security" than Trump's recent Venezuelan operation had to do with alleged drug trafficking or George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq had to do with alleged "weapons of mass destruction". Since "national security" is simply the excuse du jour, not the reason, for Trump's determination, Danish and other European leaders should realize that proposing rational responses to the excuse and ignoring the reason would, unless they are hoping that Trump will physically expire before achieving his objective either "the easy way" or "the hard way", simply be an exercise in wasting time which would increase the odds that Trump would choose "the hard way". In our "Might Makes Right" world, where Trump's actions are limited only by his "morality", Danish and European leaders could accept that Greenland's transfer from Danish to American sovereignty is inevitable and unavoidable and seek to structure the transfer in a way that could at least arguably be presented as a "democratic" choice which does not hammer a further nail into the coffin of international law and that would constitue the best "deal" possible for the 57,000 people of Greenland. European governments insist that Greenland's future is exclusively for Denmark and Greenland to decide, the Danish government insists that Greenland's future is exclusively for Greenland's people to decide and recent polling shows that a significant majority of Greenlanders prefer independence to continued Danish sovereignty, restrained as to the timing of their eventual separation from Denmark only by economic concerns. Therefore, one could imagine an agreement negotiated among the American, Danish and Greenlandic governments to hold a referendum of Greenlanders on a transfer of their country from Danish to American sovereignty subject to (i) a significant cash payment (at least US$ 100,000) from the American government to each Greenlandic man, woman and child if the electorate were to approve American sovereignty and (ii) the right for all Greenlanders to freely choose to remain Danish citizens, to become American citizens or to become dual nationals of Denmark (hence the EU) and the United States. The likely consequence if the people of Greenland were to reject American sovereignty in such a referendum could go unstated. Just a thought from an inveterate peacemonger ... Viewed from a purely geographic perspective, it would be more logical and reasonable for Greenland, which is at least physically in the Americas, to be under American sovereignty than it is for Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands (whose people chose American sovereignty rather than "free association" with the United States, as was chosen by Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau, in a referendum) and various uninhabited specks of land sprinkled across the Pacific Ocean (Baker, Howland, Jarvis and Wake Islands, Johnston, Midway and Palmyra Atolls and Kingman Reef) to be under American sovereignty.