✪ The BIG Friday SOOPER THREAD

⭐️ HelloKitty’sGotAHairTrigger

GREENLAND & “THE ART OF THE DEAL”

vvv

t was 1867 and journalists were merciless in criticizing U.S. Secretary of State William Seward; appointed to that position in 1861 by President Abraham Lincoln and serving under President Andrew Johnson until 1869.

It was that year Seward negotiated the purchase from Russia of what many Americans saw to be a vast wasteland, Alaska. It was bought for $7.2 million—the equivalent of $0.02 per acre. Critics gave the acquisition various names such as “Seward’s Folly, Seward’s Icebox,” and the “Polar Bear Garden.”

Seward’s critics mocked what they felt was the absurdity of buying Alaska, perceived as having little of value. Russia was eager to sell it as Alaska had become an economic liability. Not only were there great costs and logistical difficulties associated with supplying the territory, but Russia was struggling at that time with the enormous debt it had incurred from the disastrous Crimean War (1853–1856).

Over a century and a half later, we know the purchase of Alaska was no folly. Not only did the territory prove to be rich in oil, gold, and other resources, but it denied the Soviet Union prime real estate from which it could have seriously threatened the U.S. during the Cold War.

President Donald Trump initially made headlines by announcing in 2019 his intent to buy Greenland, issuing more serious claims this year. His critics mock him today in similar fashion as they did Seward.

Today, Greenland remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark. At one time, Denmark and Norway were unified, colonizing Greenland in the 1700s. When that union ended in 1814, Greenland became a Danish colony. Although Trump has suggested there are no written documents underscoring this, in 1916, the U.S. recognized Danish sovereignty over it.

During World War II, after Nazi Germany occupied Denmark, the U.S. invaded the island, establishing military bases there and maintaining a presence ever since. A 1951 U.S.-Denmark defense agreement granted the U.S. a significant role in Greenland’s defense, with the island formally integrated into Denmark in 1953 to end its colonial status. In 1979, Denmark granted Greenland home rule, although the former remains responsible for the latter’s defense and foreign policy.

What is Trump’s rationale for acquiring Greenland now? While 1867 America failed to recognize the strategic importance of Alaska, the strategic importance of Greenland today should be obvious.

As Trump explains, Greenland’s purchase is imperative to America’s future national security interests. Its strategic geographic position alone, controlling access to the Arctic, is of value, especially as the Arctic experiences a meltdown. It is such melting that has gained the attention of both Russia and China as they seek to spread their wings in the region to exploit its resources. Russia now has six army bases, ten radar stations, fourteen airfields, and sixteen deep-water ports there.

Just like Alaska has proven to be rich in rare earth elements (REEs), undoubtedly so too will the newly exposed Arctic lands prove to be. This is an especially important national security interest at a time the current leading exporter of rare Earth minerals—China—is limiting world access to these minerals, which are absolutely critical to the development of American technology and weaponry.

Additionally, Greenland can play an important role in providing an extended northeastern arch to the Golden Dome missile defense system Trump envisions for future America. It is a system similar to the current Iron Dome, which has successfully protected Israel from short-range rockets and artillery attacks; a system developed jointly by the Jewish state with U.S. assistance.

America’s northernmost military base, Pituffik Space Base, is located in Greenland where the base would be part of the Golden Dome. It is already proving vital for its early warning missile system and its space surveillance capability.

Trump is very concerned that Denmark and NATO are failing adequately to protect Greenland against the ever-increasing Russian and Chinese threats.

There are a few ways America can gain control over the world’s largest island. While military force is an option, it would be very damaging to America’s image as well as to the NATO alliance; an action to which all member nations would object. This is undoubtedly why Trump recently backpedalled on this option.

Precedents for U.S. Military action to secure semiautonomous states do exist, evidenced by what we did in 1893 in Hawaii, and in 1899 in the Philippines. However, a preferred option would be obtaining peaceful acquisition or control.

This could include first making a deal with Denmark and Greenland to purchase it, which probably would be the easier part. However, under our Constitution, as a treaty, the purchase would then require approval receiving a Senate supermajority of 67 votes. With a strong anti-Trump element in the Senate, despite the fact U.S. national security is at stake, when it comes to that versus undermining Trump, every Democrat in the Senate, save perhaps Senator John Fetterman (D-Penn), would probably prefer to do the latter.

Another alternative is for Greenland to become a U.S. territory; as are the Virgin Islands. Or a freely associated state by virtue of a compact with the U.S. as has been done with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. While these three have been granted substantial economic aid, the U.S. is responsible for their security and defense. This is usually done by means of a treaty which again, would require a supermajority, but might possibly be done as an act of Congress. A precedent exists for moving a treaty forward by not labelling it as one: Barack Obama, in passing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran as an executive agreement, did just that.

Should Greenland be incorporated into the U.S., it would be the largest territorial expansion in our history as it is twice as big as Alaska.

Due to European opposition to a Greenland purchase, Trump threatened to impose a new 10% tariff effective February 1, “on any and all goods” sent to the U.S. by those countries opposing the acquisition, with it to increase to 25% by June 1 absent any deal.

However, it would appear now, in the wake of an announcement Trump just made, the Greenland acquisition may all have been a ploy by which the president sought to achieve his real goal, known only to him and his close associates.

In negotiating the “art of the deal” with his European opponents, Trump reports he will not now implement the tariffs, as NATO has agreed to the “framework” of an arrangement that will provide security for the Arctic region.

It took years for Americans to realize Seward’s Folly was not one. It has taken us a much shorter time to realize Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland was probably just a folly he imposed upon our European allies to get them to agree to what is in America’s, as well as their own, interests, i.e., bringing Western security to the Arctic. ✪