To quote Reagan, there is no Panama Canal: there is an American Canal in Panama. Of course without Theodore Roosevelt, the father of Panamanian independence, there would be no Panama either.
Oh, and Greenland is back on the table:
Anticipatory Schadenreude
- Donald R. McClarey
Donald R. McClarey
Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 43 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Greenland operates independently to Denmark, although half of its public funding comes from Denmark subsidies. It makes economic sense for Denmark not to have to continue to subsidise Greenland’s economy.
However, I agree that Greenland should be able to continue to determine its own sovereignty and I see why Denmark has not taken advantage of its resource and geopolitical potential for this reason. Perhaps where Denmark falls short is helping Greenland unlock its own economic and political potential for the benefit of Greenland.
The US already operates Thule US Military airbase off Greenland and I’m sure that Denmark would be co-operative with future military plans by the US for the purpose of world security.
However It shouldn’t happen out of principle.
The native population of Greenland is about 54000. The Prime Minister is an advocate of Greenland independence. I have long thought that a referendum should be put to the population of Greenland: status quo; become a territory of the US; independence. The US should let it be known that if Greenland is granted territorial status, each Greenlander, as of January 1, 2025, will receive a million dollars tax free, American citizenship and transportation by the US government one way to wherever they would like to live, if they do not wish to remain in Greenland.
That should seal the deal, Donald … and at a bargain!
We should just take it.
. . .and rename it “Magaland”.
Agree with a referendum to be put to the people. I have a feeling they will stay with the status quo.
I get that 540k is nothing in comparison to the US population. And I get that Greenland is closer to Boston than Copenhagen. And I also get that it makes more political, geographical and economic sense for Greenland to become another US territory.
I just don’t believe you can put a price on everything and everyone especially when it comes to the right to self-determine and govern.
We just need to invoke the Monroe Doctrine and expel the Europeans by seizing Greenland.
Everyone:
Greenland’s activists look forward to being the first Native American nation on the planet, which may not be economically manageable, but I don’t think (from my admittedly limited reading) that a buyout would be well received. The Danes on the other hand (who sold us their West Indian interests in 1917) would probably go for it.
Perhaps a negotiated independence with a 100 year military arrangement for the US.
Looks good for Danes and US but keeps Greenland out of unfriendly control of Denmark goes squishy or Muslim.
I disagree. Territories whose population falls below a certain threshold should be dependencies of states which have populations and income flows above that threshold. In some cases, such territories might be notionally sovereign but have a patron-client relationship with a more consequential state. That includes most of the world’s insular and coastal territories. Alas, the U.S. government has made a mess of things with its overseas dependencies during the post-war period, so is not the optimal patron for Greenland (or any place else, when you come right down to it).
Greenland is justly a territory as it possesses few, if any, of the customary characteristics of a nation. To keep it simple, the US should negotiate a long term arrangement with Denmark for the strategic and economic interests that support our security and leave the social arrangements to the Danes. The lesson of Puerto Rico should inform the difficulty of integrating a somewhat diffident population into another differing culture.
“The lesson of Puerto Rico should inform the difficulty of integrating a somewhat diffident population into another differing culture.”
Donald Link: A population of 54,000? Don’t think Puerto Rico, think Alaska or the Louisiana purchase. The Intuit and the Cajuns integrated just fine.
***
Art, I’d agree that the benefits of this relationship would be somewhat one-sided … That’s what the $million bribe is for 😀
Another clever ploy by Donald Trump. Since Trump’s announcement about buying the island the Danes have replied that it is not for sale and plans to beef up the island security with 1.5 Billion. .The GIUK Gap is strategic for a variety of reasons, Russian subs use it for access to the Atlantic from their far north base.. Denmark is a member of NATO. In 1941 an agreement was made for the US to have military bases on Greenland. Thule is the best known of the three air bases.
For Greenland and the Canal, the important aspect is ensuring that no other foreign power gets its mitts on either, avoiding the disastrous examples of Diego Garcia and the Solomon Islands.
As to Puerto Rico, the U.S. simply has to settle on one strategy for the island: three million Americans deserve better than being whipsawed by changes in policy. What should be “an American Singapore” has been ill-served by our national legislature over the past thirty years.
the disastrous examples of Diego Garcia and the Solomon Islands.
==
Diego Garcia?
==
As to Puerto Rico, the U.S. simply has to settle on one strategy for the island: three million Americans deserve better than being whipsawed by changes in policy. What should be “an American Singapore” has been ill-served by our national legislature over the past thirty years.
==
The relationship has been dysfunctional since 1961 if not earlier. IMO, the place should have been prepared for formal sovereignty and as much actual sovereignty as it could manage. Whatever services and benefits we provided them should not have included an open door to migrate to the Mainland and should not have included income transfers wherein the per capita benefit exceeds a certain percentage of local nominal income. You could say much the same about all of the off-shore dependencies bar that Puerto Rico (and the Philippines) had the demographic weight to contemplate formal sovereignty and the other territories did not. Nowadays, most people descended from the 1898 population live on the Mainland and the employment-to-population ratio on the island is shockingly low.
==
I’m afraid policy-makers made a mess of things with overseas dependencies after a certain point.