John Kliewer's Web Site

Tag: Greenland

  • Vance Visits Greenland

    I go into more depth about Trump’s imperialist agenda vis-a-vis Greenland in my post New American Imperialism. Here I follow up with highlights and lowlights from Vice President JD Vance’s trip to Greenland.

    This was not a visit of friendship. It’s unclear to me to what extent the Trump administration expected Greenlanders to buy that story. Trump isn’t stupid, so I’d say not much. Perhaps, by sending the Second Lady without the VP, they were trying to soften the message. I doubt this was a bid to woo Greenlanders.

    Plan A

    Originally, Usha Vance, Second Lady of the United States, was slated to head what I gather was supposed to be a goodwill trip of sorts, including an appearance at a dog sled race. There was pushback from the public and government of Greenland as well as Denmark. The original itinerary was abbreviated to be an appearance at Pituffik Space Base, with Mrs. Vance’s husband, Vice President JD Vance, added to spearhead the trip.

    I’ve seen speculation that the Trump administration made the change to save face. Had they followed their plans for public appearances in Greenlandic society, there would have been the spectacle of protests, showing the world that the Greenlanders

    • are not cowed.
    • oppose becoming part of the US.

    Apparently there’s some belief that the Trump administration thinks they can convince Americans, at least Trumpists, that Greenlanders want to join the US. That strikes me as a hard sell. I didn’t need to wait for footage of Greenlanders heckling Mrs. Vance at a dog sled race.

    Vance’s remarks at Pituffik

    You can watch JD Vance’s remarks at Pituffik Space Base in full here. Below I take quotes from the video and give my comments. (Note that I don’t have the time or patience to fact check all of Vance’s claims).

    Vance’s speech:

    • 7:23 We know that Russia and China and other nations are taking an extraordinary interest in Arctic passageways and Arctic naval routes and indeed in the minerals of the Arctic territories.
      This is very true. With global warming, the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean has been decreasing for years, making previously icebound parts of the Arctic navigable, and for more of the year. This opens the possibility of shorter shipping routes. The US has ample reason to take an increasing interest in Greenland. The US has no reason to threaten Greenland’s sovereignty.
    • 8:45 Denmark has not kept pace in devoting the resources necessary to keep this base, to keep our troops, and in my view to keep the people of Greenland safe from a lot of very aggressive incursions from Russia, from China, and from other nations.
      What incursions? Show your work. The 1951 Defense of Greenland agreement spells out that safeguarding Greenland’s security is a joint Danish/American endeavor.
    • 9:55 Denmark hasn’t done a good job at keeping Greenland safe.
      From whom, an imperialist US president?
    • 10:42 You [Denmark] have not done a good job by the people of Greenland, you have underinvested in the people of Greenland, and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful landmass filled with incredible people. That has to change, and because it hasn’t changed, this is why President Trump’s policy in Greenland is what it is.
    • 12:00 We believe in the self-determination of the population of the people of Greenland.
      As long as they choose to join the US? Trump pledged to acquire Greenland “one way or the other”.

    Vance’s answers to journalists’ questions:

    • 15:15 Vance softened Trump’s claim that “We have to have Greenland.” to “We do have to be more serious about the security of Greenland.”. This sounds like an overture to Greenlanders. One thrust of Vance’s remarks seemed to be that he was taking sides with the Greenlanders against their overlords in Denmark.
    • 15:26 …we can’t ignore what I said earlier, which is the Russian and Chinese encroachment in Greenland.
      Show me, Mr. Vance. This is vague, and it could mean naval or air patrols near Greenland. This wording seems crafted to imply that Russia and China actually have a toehold in Greenland, which I highly doubt. The US and Denmark wouldn’t tolerate it, and Greenland is protected under NATO’s umbrella because Denmark is a NATO country.
    • 16:25 We hope that they choose to partner with the United States because we’re the only nation on earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security.
      This is richly ironic. I do not need to tell you that the US is the country threatening Greenland’s sovereignty. It’s also another swipe at Denmark.

    This speech is another instance of Vance’s in-your-face approach to intruding into the internal affairs of European allies, most notoriously captured in his speech at the Munich Security Conference.

    Outwardly, this looks like a strategy by an expansionist country to sow internal division within another country to encourage a part of that country to break away and join the country pursuing expansion. I don’t know how much Vance’s remarks were directed at Greenlanders vs. directed at Americans, but this strategy has chilling parallels to Putin’s years-long strategy to peel away parts of Ukraine (the Donbas region, before he get impatient and launched the full scale invasion in 2022), Moldova, and Georgia (South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions). This is but one example of how Trump has adopted Putin’s playbook and methods.

    Closing Remarks

    Trump has pointedly refused to take military force off the table.

    This is not the first unwelcome visit by Trump’s minions. Remember Donald Trump Jr.’s ostentatious arrival in Greenland on Trump Sr.’s plane in full Trump brand livery.

    I stand in solidarity with the Greenlanders in unwelcoming advances from the Vances.

  • New American Imperialism

    President Donald Trump is attempting to usher in a new era of American imperialism. Is anyone raising the alarm?

    One of the most alarming aspects of Trump’s agenda has to be his rhetoric saying the US should take land from other countries. The response in America is surprisingly muted. I can think of 3 reasons:

    1. A belief that this is so preposterous, from a president who’s prolific in preposterous output, that it’s not to be taken seriously. You can’t treat it as all bluster when it comes from the president of the United States.
    2. Many Americans are simply apathetic. This topic is worth its own blog post and has to be one of the principal reasons the moral fiber of America has deteriorated so.
    3. Americans that reject imperialism, namely the anti-Trumpists, feel powerless. We presently are a minority in the halls of power, but we’re only truly powerless if we choose to be. I choose not to be, and that’s why I speak out against Trumpism. Writing in a blog isn’t enough. I see it as a starting point in a long game.

    By my count, Trump has made the US takeover of the following countries and territories part of his agenda:

    1. Canada
    2. Greenland
    3. Panama (Panama Canal Zone in particular, not the whole country, though I won’t put it past Trump)
    4. Gaza Strip

    I focus on Canada and Greenland in this post. Panama and Gaza are important too, and I shall revisit those in future posts.

    Attention: Canadians and Greenlanders

    I hope you and other non-Americans are reading this. The Trump presidency is a waking nightmare. I never expected our country to get in a crisis this bad, and of our own making no less. I’m as horrified about it as you are. Before the rise of Trumpism, I never contemplated a president threatening to annex foreign countries, let alone friends. I always thought we were the good guys, even if we made some colossal mistakes that eroded that standing (like invading Iraq on the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction).

    I watch our president, how he speaks, what he says, and still can’t believe people think this is normal or that he is at all fit to be president. I think if most Americans from 2005 could time travel to 2025, they would say we elected a madman. Even to me, it feels far more like normal than it should. I’ve gotten so accustomed to it that most of the alarm and panic I felt in Trump’s first few weeks back in office have mostly subsided. I have a moral imperative as an American not to get complacent. As an American citizen, I have as much of a right as anyone else to make my mark to make the US that kind of country I want it to be.

    You probably aren’t aware of how divided America is over Trump. I have friends and family on both sides: those that are equally horrified, and those who support Trump unconditionally. There have always been issues that have divided Americans. Historically we’ve been divided along lines like urban vs. rural, coastal vs. interior states, rich vs. poor, race, etc. The Trump divide is very individualized, and not along the traditional lines. Most Americans don’t talk (at least not openly) about Trump or his agenda, including those with strong opinions on Trump. I’m trying to do my part to break out of that pattern.

    Trump’s expansionist designs

    You can’t dismiss Trump’s rhetoric for several reasons:

    • Trump is President of the United States. You have to be able to take the president at his word. You can’t just dismiss it because you don’t believe him. America elects their president to speak to the world on their behalf. The Trumpists did just that in electing Trump. To the Trumpists: you forced us to take what he says seriously, no matter how outlandish, because you elected him president.
    • He talks about it repeatedly. This isn’t a one-off. (And even a bad one-off is bad enough.)
    • The countries he’s threatening, aside from Canada, are essentially defenseless. Furthermore, they’re friendly countries. More to the point, they are not countries aligned with our most powerful enemies, namely China and Russia, that could expect those countries to come to their aid. Trump is threatening Canada, Greenland, and Panama. Why not Cuba, a weak longtime enemy right off our coast? (To be clear, we shouldn’t be invading Cuba.) It might be that the other 3 have something he actually wants. He might expect the people in these countries to be more passive in their resistance than Cuba.
    • Trump has a pattern of endorsing this kind of behavior from Putin. Like “encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to “delinquent” NATO countries. Or, calling Putin’s 2022 reinvasion of Ukraine “brilliant”. He’s very public about his adulation of Putin. We need to consider that this genuinely reflects his values.

    The US cannot conquer any part in the world just because it has a vital security interest there. It’s not just morally objectionable. Imperialism (or maybe I’m thinking of colonialism) is an inefficient way for a world power to impose its will on foreign lands. It works a lot better to partner with local governments. People are more inclined to submit to rule by their own than rule by foreigners. Against expectations, the UK became wealthier after divesting the British Empire post World War 2. I’d suppose it has something to do with that.

    I can’t even believe I have to make an argument for not taking over countries that goes beyond the fact that it’s just plain wrong. Before the rise of Trump, that would have been enough for the great majority of Americans. Trump sees the world as a playing field to be divided up among the great powers.

    Is expansionism ever justified?

    This is an ugly question, but national security imperatives sometimes call for unpleasant and messy tradeoffs.

    First, it would take a lot to convince me that the US needs to expand its territorial claims now or in the foreseeable future. I could even rule that out. I do rule out annexing friendly countries. Having reached a preeminent position in the world, especially post World War 2 (which included acquisition of overseas territory), the US doesn’t have to take land from other countries for national security reasons.

    I’m open to the idea that there are legitimate security reasons for having oversees possessions. Whatever the reasons, they must be compelling, with the US having exhausted the voluntary/cooperative options in obtaining access to those territories. We are not at that point anywhere, least of all in friendly countries. With the possible exception of those who would start an unprovoked war against the US, having security justifications doesn’t excuse away dispossessing the rightful inhabitants of those lands.

    There is precedence for the US and allies taking over foreign lands. The US still holds oversees territories like Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. It bothers me that there are lands that are part of the US that don’t have the representation in the US that we have in the States. They’re like second class citizens, and that shouldn’t be, not in the US. Frankly, I don’t know much about it. Maybe there is a semiautonomous status quo that the affected populations are satisfied with (like the relationship Greenland has with Denmark). I always took it as a given, certainly in the US, that consent of the governed with the right to political participation at all levels of government is the cornerstone of the compact between a legitimate government and its people. Or, as Abraham Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg Address: “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

    Trump has tried to sell his annexation aspirations to the US public in part by touting the benefits to those who would be annexed. If Trump really had good intentions for the people he wants to annex, he would be tending to the unresolved issues of the people the US has already annexed.

    British Invasion of Iceland

    This is a fascinating case study of taking over foreign lands for exigent national security purposes.

    The UK invaded Iceland in 1940, during World War 2. Iceland is strategically located along the maritime and air routes between North America and Europe, particular the UK. This made Iceland strategic for both the UK and Germany in controlling the North Atlantic sea lanes. Iceland’s preference was to stay out of the war and not have to pick sides. There had been growing concern in Iceland that the UK or Germany would take over the island. The Brits did it first, carrying out a bungling but bloodless invasion with no forcible resistance. As I understand, there was some relief among Icelanders when it was the Brits and not the Germans. I think the British attitude was something like: we feel terrible about it, but we have to take over your island for our security. The Brits did not harass the Icelanders, interfere with their government, or rule the people. The Brits really wanted Iceland to station military personnel and assets to combat the Germans. While the Brits didn’t give Icelanders a choice about occupying their country, the Brits and later the Americans did want them on their side and tried to do right by them. Today Iceland is a free and sovereign NATO partner.

    Iceland in WW2 was a very different situation:

    • We’re not at war.
    • The US has long had strong security relationships with Canada and Greenland. Both are NATO allies (Greenland because Denmark is in NATO), whereas Iceland was neutral. If we need to ramp up our forward defense posture in those countries to counter a hostile power, we’re already well integrated and set to go.

    Canada

    We have close military ties with the Canadians. Already, Canada is reviewing its decision to buy the F-35. Frankly, I don’t see how they could proceed with such a buy with a country that has shattered a long-standing bond of trust. I also wonder if this means the breakup of NORAD, a joint command of the US and Canada that monitors and protects Canadian and US airspace. This would make both countries less safe. We’ve had a great relationship with Canada for ages and have been blessed to have the best neighbors and friends anyone could ask for. Throwing all that away is totally unforced, caused because America elected a destroyer of alliances.

    I hope that if Trump did order war on Canada,

    • Congress would refuse to declare war and would do everything in their power to restrain Trump, like remove him from office.
    • The military would refuse orders to attack Canada. That so many Americans would vote in a president one could realistically expect to force uniformed officers to have to make such a grave decision, is a disgrace. It still bewilders me that they voted to give someone like Trump the nuclear codes.

    Greenland

    US security interests

    Why does Trump “need” Greenland for national security purposes? Russia is the only plausible reason. That begs the question: why Greenland if he sees Russia as a credible US partner? I think Trump sees Greenland as a vulnerable and exposed target there for the taking.

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    Greenland and Denmark have long made Greenland available for US (and NATO) defense needs since the Cold War (Defense of Greenland agreement of 1951) and perhaps before then. If we have a legitimate national security need to pursue in Greenland (a new base, more early-warning radars, satellite-tracking stations, etc.), Greenland is likely to greenlight it. This in spite of the fact that we haven’t always been faithful tenants (Project Iceworm). By antagonizing Denmark and Greenland, Trump has probably made legitimate requests that previously would have been freely granted subject to pushback and suspicion. Doesn’t that make us less secure? I could see him using that as a cynical rationale for taking over Greenland. There’s the legitimate concern of Chinese or Russian encroachment in weak and exposed countries. (Chinese presence in the vicinity of the Panama Canal is a legitimate if highly overblown concern.) The fact that Greenland is part of Denmark, long a close and faithful US and NATO ally, is very helpful on this count, and this status quo will keep that from happening.

    Luke Coffey’s article is worth a read. He says it perfectly: “…every American policy goal in Greenland can be pursued through our close and long-standing relationships with both the Greenlandic and Danish governments.”.

    Minerals

    I don’t know whether projections of Greenland’s mineral wealth are based more on

    • assessments of geologists, or
    • armchair speculation that because Greenland is a vast landmass which is mostly covered by an ice sheet that is receding due to global warming, there’s bound to be mineral resources waiting to be exploited.

    My uninformed guess is that Greenland holds considerable untapped recoverable mineral resources.

    There’s no disputing that minerals are vital to our economic and national security. (Perhaps we can soften our need for minerals by consuming less, but that’s another issue.) The way to secure access to vital minerals found only outside the US in recoverable quantities is to maintain positive, win-win relationships with countries possessing those resources. Whatever mineral resources are waiting to be exploited in Greenland, they’re already in friendly hands.

    Greenland’s present export economy is mainly in fishing. Maybe Trump is a seafood lover.

    Where do we go from here?

    What do we Americans need to be doing now to thwart Trump’s expansionist agenda?

    • Speak out.
    • Contact your members of Congress.
    • Elect Democrats in the next election cycle, not because they’re so great but because they’re the only alternative in the foreseeable future to the Republicans, who will do anything Trump commands them. Electing Democrats would be a welcome development, but the job doesn’t end there. We need to stay on them about checking Trump.
    • Civil disobedience. This would be a new tack for most of us. But, we’ll need to up the ante without resorting to violence.
    • I’m still figuring out the rest. Help me out.