State Visit from the USA to Denmark: September 2-3, 2019 {Cancelled}


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
The financial advisor to President Trump has confirmed to Fox that a purchase of Greenland is an option that is looked into.
https://politiken.dk/indland/art7338874/Mette-Frederiksen-slår-fast-Grønland-er-ikke-til-salg

The advisor, Larry Kudlow, says: "Denmark owns Greenland. Denmark is an ally. Greenland is a strategic place. They have a lot of valuable minerals.
The President, who knows something about buying real-estate, would like to look into it."

The Danish PM, Mette Frederiksen, has for the first time responded directly:
Grønland er ikke til salg. Grønland er ikke dansk. Grønland er grønlandsk. Jeg håber vedholdende, at det ikke er noget, der er alvorligt ment
"Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland. I sincerely hope that this is not meant seriously."

- Well. As mentioned in my previous post, the PM has a full Parliament to back her up. Denmark will not and cannot sell 56.000 citizens.

But what if this is serious? What is the US administration does wish to officially inquire about a possible purchase of Greenland by USA during the upcoming state visit?
Well, as mentioned before, it would be considered a huge insult, by a guest no less! And completely rejected.
It would be the equivalent of asking the British government to consider selling Wales. Or the equivalent of the Chinese President flying to Washington to ask to purchase the state of Oregon - and it's citizens... - I cannot emphasize too much that it is in that light this is seen in Denmark and in particular in Greenland.
But what would be the Danish reaction? A total rejection and refusal to discuss this matter further is a certainty.
Would it influence the US-Danish negotiations in regards to US wishes to increase the base at Thule? And the wishes of allowing US planes and ships to use Greenlandic facilities?
That would be the interesting question! That the Thule Base will be expanded is IMO a certainty, that's in Danish/Greenlandic security interests as well. But it would certainly make the task of the US negotiators much more difficult. - It's after all more tricky to negotiate with someone you have just insulted.
The worst possible scenario if that the US administration go public with a wish to purchase Greenland prior to the visit. That could lead to a first: That an allied country about to receive an incoming state visit by the US President might actually cancel that visit.

However, the underlying signal is hard to miss: That the US administration consider Greenland to be so vital, that it is willing to go to such length as to considering purchasing a foreign country, that is a part of a realm of an allied country!
 
Last edited:
Muhler said:
The financial advisor to President Trump has confirmed to Fox that a purchase of Greenland is an option that is looked into.
https://politiken.dk/indland/art7338874/Mette-Frederiksen-slår-fast-Grønland-er-ikke-til-salg

The advisor, Larry Kudlow, says: "Denmark owns Greenland. Denmark is an ally. Greenland is a strategic place. They have a lot of valuable minerals.
The President, who knows something about buying real-estate, would like to look into it."

The Danish PM, Mette Frederiksen, has for the first time responded directly:
Grønland er ikke til salg. Grønland er ikke dansk. Grønland er grønlandsk. Jeg håber vedholdende, at det ikke er noget, der er alvorligt ment
"Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland. I sincerely hope that this is not meant seriously."

As an American, this is so embarrassing. I could go on (and on, and on) but I'll stop there.

- Well. As mentioned in my previous post, the PM has a full Parliament to back her up. Denmark will not and cannot sell 56.000 citizens.

But what if this is serious? What is the US administration does wish to officially inquire about a possible purchase of Greenland by USA during the upcoming state visit?
Well, as mentioned before, it would be considered a huge insult, by a guest no less! And completely rejected.
It would be the equivalent of asking the British government to consider selling Wales. Or the equivalent of the Chinese President flying to Washington to ask to purchase the state of Oregon - and it's citizens... - I cannot emphasize too much that it is in that light this is seen in Denmark and in particular in Greenland.
But what would be the Danish reaction? A total rejection and refusal to discuss this matter further is a certainty.
Would it influence the US-Danish negotiations in regards to US wishes to increase the base at Thule? And the wishes of allowing US planes and ships to use Greenlandic facilities?
That would be the interesting question! That the Thule Base will be expanded is IMO a certainty, that's in Danish/Greenlandic security interests as well. But it would certainly make the task of the US negotiators much more difficult. - It's after all more tricky to negotiate with someone you have just insulted.
The worst possible scenario if that the US administration go public with a wish to purchase Greenland prior to the visit. That could lead to a first: That an allied country about to receive an incoming state visit by the US President might actually cancel that visit.

However, the underlying signal is hard to miss: That the US administration consider Greenland to be so vital, that it is willing to go to such length as to considering purchasing a foreign country, that is a part of a realm of an allied country!
Click to expand...

As an American, this is all so embarrassing. I could go on (and on, and on...) but that pretty well covers it.
 
Muhler said:
However, the underlying signal is hard to miss: That the US administration consider Greenland to be so vital, that it is willing to go to such length as to considering purchasing a foreign country, that is a part of a realm of an allied country!
Click to expand...

Greed and dollar signs can push people into thinking of doing things they never would ordinarily think of doing. This, IMO, is what I see behind Trump's thinking he can buy Greenland for all the rare earth minerals. I also believe that it would be a huge mistake to even contemplate asking for a purchase price from either Denmark or Greenland and there's a very good reason why.

Now, I'm not too informed on politics and policy of both Greenland and Denmark but thanks to our own Muhler, his input got me to do a little bit of research. I do honestly hope that Trump and his administration do the little amount of research I did, find out what I did and then scrap the idea of buying Greenland.

First off, Trump is of the opinion that "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.". I respect his opinion as his own and there are a *lot* of people out there that don't see global warming as being anything of a problem. But wait.... there's the other side of the coin to look at here.

If any country is feeling the effects of global warming and adapting to it, it is the citizens of Greenland. Its their home that is witnessing more and more of the changes that are occurring. Denmark, if I'm to believe this article, is also making the problem of global warming a priority. As recently as June, 2019, it was reported that "in a deal with other left parties, the Social Democrats agreed to raise the country’s climate targets and place the green transition at the heart of policy."

So we have both Greenland and Denmark on the opposite side of the fence from Trump when it comes to facing the problem of climate change and global warming. It would seem preposterous for either Greenland or Denmark to even consider selling out and allowing the rape of the earth in Greenland and totally deplete resources that may end up being Greenland's life blood for their economic survival as their country keeps changing.

Two articles that helped form my opinion here:

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2...nment-raises-climate-change-highest-priority/

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...nts-grapple-with-global-warming-idUSKCN1P41EC
 
I heard on CNN news earlier today, according to Trump, Denmark spends $US700m on Greenland every year and Denmark cannot afford that! How the heck does he know that?
 
stellad said:
I heard on CNN news earlier today, according to Trump, Denmark spends $US700m on Greenland every year and Denmark cannot afford that! How the heck does he know that?
Click to expand...


Of course Denmark can afford that. It is one of Europe's wealthiest countries.
It is all so toe-wrangling... Brrrr...

:ermm:
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
Of course Denmark can afford that. It is one of Europe's wealthiest countries.
It is all so toe-wrangling... Brrrr...

:ermm:
Click to expand...

It is a wealthy country in per capita terms, but in absolute terms it is a relatively small economy as expected for a small country .
 
If rare earth minerals are allowed to be extracted by whichever company no matter which country it belongs to, Denmark and Greenland will become very wealthy indeed via mining royalties.

And I am confident that Very strict rules will be part of any mining contract regards to operations and of course the eventual rehabilitation of the mine site. That is the cleanup and restoration of the mine site once the mine is exhausted.
 
Unfortunately, in the US we are talking about an administration that wants to build the largest open cast mine in the world in Alaska endangering the previously protected spawning grounds for sockeye salmon.
 
Mbruno said:
It is a wealthy country in per capita terms, but in absolute terms it is a relatively small economy as expected for a small country .
Click to expand...


Denmark is one of the EU countries with a triple A-rating, the highest degree of creditworthiness, fully able to meet financial commitments and consequently running an almost zero risk of defaulting. I have not the slightest worry about the "financial burden" which Greenland possibly is for Denmark.
:lol:
 
Well, as you know by now, President Trump himself said that purchasing Greenland is considered, albeit not as a high priority.
But it is, in diplomatic terms, only a step or two away from an official inquiry.

He has also expressed doubts as to whether he will even go to Denmark.

Okay, that is a big breach of diplomatic protocol. A state visit is the big thing. And you normally only cancel for very good reasons. Not because you suddenly change your mind. That's considered an insult to the host nation, not least because DK has spend quite a lot of money preparing for this visit - and so has the American taxpayers.
The reactions and comments are of course pouring in, but there is a general consensus across the political spectrum, as expressed by senior politicians. The government has said that they expect the US President to come visiting in two weeks, and that's what they work from. The DRF has declined to comment but refer to the PM's office.
But back to the comments. It is widely believed that President Trump casting doubt as to whether he will go to Denmark, is a direct response to the rejection of the Danish (and Greenlandic as well) government to sell Greenland let alone discuss such a sale.
Or alternatively that it is a form of pressure from the US administration for Denmark to reconsider.
- Should the latter be the case, President Trump would have miscalculated. Despite the money spend on the preparations and despite the affront it would be, there would, as things are right now, be a quiet sigh of relief should the visit be cancelled.
It is one thing to reject the President's proposals from a distance, it's an entirely another matter to do it face to face. Things could easily turn ugly.
Normally a visit by the US President, whomever it may be, would be considered a feather in the hat and a pad on the shoulder, but if such a visit leads to serious souring of the relationship between DK and USA, it's better to do without.

But what about the Thule Base, I hear you ask? And the US military interests in Greenland, that the US administration, wished to expand?
Well, at least legally speaking DK holds the upper hand. DK can as a retaliation simply say no to further expansions - for the time being. It will in any case make things a lot more difficult for the US negotiators!
But what if US just go ahead? Simply expand the Thule Base without asking?
That would of course be a serious breach of international law and national sovereignty. - Even if it on a long term basis is an advantage for DK and Greenland in particular.
But that's moving into the realm of pure speculations and that is for now, outside the scope of this thread.

President Trump suggested that the Danish subsidy to Greenland is a huge drain in our finances and we can hardly afford it. (That's certainly a common perception I have seen from comments sections.)
No it isn't.
The Danish economy is booming. We can easily afford to send 700 million $ to Greenland each year. It's a minor irritant for the Danish taxpayers, but hardly something the economists are concerned about.

It is also a common misconception that Denmark will benefit from the raw-materials in Greenland.
No, we won't. Danish companies might get orders and Danes by their thousands might find jobs there, in fact that's likely. But taxes from their income will go to the Greenlandic treasury, not the Danish. And all resources in Greenland belongs to Greenland, not Denmark.
Provided of course it is even practical, let alone profitable, to mine in Greenland.

Osipi is correct, the new Danish government was mainly elected on a pledge to try and make a serious difference in regards to the climate - in Denmark.
What the Greenlanders wish to do with their country is their business.
If they wish to strip-mine the whole island it will be their decision. If they wish to preserve as much of Greenland as possible untouched, it will be their decision.

There have among some of the comments I have seen, been many who have suggested compensating each Greenlanders for the purchase of Greenland. A figure of one million Dollars has come up frequently.
The reaction in Greenland is absolute fury!
It's the same thing as asking the average American to accept selling their state and becoming say Chinese citizens, in return for one million Dollars.
- The Greenlanders are patriots too.

It has also been suggested in many comments that the Greenlanders are poor. That is also a misconception.
Greenland itself is relatively poor. With 56.000 inhabitants and a limited number of businesses, there is a limit how big the tax-revenue is. Hence the subsidy from Denmark.
But average Greenlanders have a pretty decent living standard. Some of them a very good living standard! But prices are of course high, as can be expected on a fairly isolated island.
Of course Greenland sure has their fair share of social problems, but that is hardly due to the economy. Usually that stems from addiction, mainly alcohol.
Unfortunately the Greenlandic government seem somewhat reluctant to really address the issue of social problems, to the point that some Danish politicians have suggested taking over.
 
Last edited:
:previous:

We have had the same recently. The President was invited for the 75th commemoration of the Battle of the Scheldt and this was announced on the website of the Royal House. This would never ever have been published without signals between the Dutch amd US Foreign Departments, between the Dutch and US Embassies. In the end Mr Trump is not coming...

But this is another step further, this is a State Visit. I can not imagine the President insulting Denmark by outright cancelling it... Even from Trump this would be an affront.

:ohmy:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well done everyone. You are reacting as planned to a cynical premeditated tactic. The aim was to get everyone talking about him for no particular reason. The subject is so irrational and absurd, it proves the power of the presidency. And this pointless situation - where he is centre of attention - proves that a reckless, unprincipled holder of the office has been able to so fully achieve the dream of a narcissist. Like a screaming spoiled child, all stop to listen and to placate the little prince. Daisy will not be pleased. A state visit is about partnership and the visitor is already making so much noise so it is all about him alone. And this all happens because it is permitted.
 
If Trump does indeed ‘no-show’ for this royal visit, he can probably forget about any further invitations to visit with European monarchs.
 
ladongas said:
If Trump does indeed ‘no-show’ for this royal visit, he can probably forget about any further invitations to visit with European monarchs.
Click to expand...

IMO that will not make a difference. Political necessities outweigh hurt feelings, or more correctly annoyance.
But US representatives can expect snide remarks: He is going to come, right?

It is even likely that DK would again extend an invitation, should President Trump wish to be invited again - but perhaps not a state visit though.

The Danish PM is touring Greenland these days and at the same time the government has declared it's intention of building up the military presence in the Arctic. Nothing new in that, that has slowly been going on for twenty years now.

These last days has been a rude wake-up call for many Greenladers though. A brutal lesson in real politics: When it's about strategic interests they don't matter. So this might actually strengthen the bonds between Denmark and Greenland. We shall see.

The ironic thing is that USA could easily and with a minimum of costs take control of Greenland's economy and as such politics. An investment of ten-fifteen billion Dollars over the next ten-twenty years in Greenland, would put American companies in a domineering position and the Greenlanders would even welcome the investments. - At least initially...
It could be done at a trifle of the cost of "buying" Greenland and the net result would be pretty much the same. - The Chinese tried and got close to succeeding.
I have said it before and I will say it again: There will be no such thing as an independent Greenland. No matter what, Greenland will be dependent of another country, the question is which they prefer.

There are already remarks from Danes in the comments sections basically saying: Well, there you are, Greenlanders. You matter so little, they don't even bother talking to you. So perhaps a little gratitude for our tax-money, we send to you, would be in order!
 
Ow, is the relationship between Denmark and Greenland a bit frictioned? I would say: "owning" the world's biggest island on such a strategic place only enhances Denmark's intrinsic weight in the world. And for Greenland, having access to the economic giant EU via Denmark, is also a pro. It works both ways.
 
Last edited:
Duc_et_Pair said:
Ow, is the relationship between Denmark and Greenland a bit frictioned? I would say: "owning" the world's biggest island on such a strategic place only enhances Denmark's intrinsic weight in the world. And for Greenland, having access to the economic giant EU via Denmark, is also a pro. It works both ways.
Click to expand...

It does, but for the average taxpayer that doesn't really matter in the day to day life.

As I said in a previous post, we can easily afford to subsidize Greenland, but it's a minor irritant for the Danish taxpayers. And it is hardly something the Danish taxpayers think about more than a few times a year, when watching the news or something like that.

The reason is, and here I interject my personal opinion, that the Greenlanders are pretty spoiled.
They have autonomy as well as seats in the Parliament.
They have full rights to their resources, they have full rights to a free/or heavily subsidized higher education in Denmark and they have free access to advanced medical treatment in Denmark.
There is no conscription for Greenlanders, so it's almost exclusively ethnic Danish soldiers who patrol and uphold Greenlandic territorial sovereignty.
And they have been guaranteed independence when they want it.

- All that is fair enough, in the minds of the vast majority of Danes I'd say. They are after all a part of the realm. And with the exeption of a number of Greenlanders who have ended up as addicts in Denmark, all Greenlanders here are fully integrated and hardly distinguishable from ethnic Danes.

But it's money from the Danish taxpayers who keep Greenland running.
So when the Danish press and politicians point out that there are severe and unaddressed social issues in Greenland, not least involving children and the response is: Mind your own business!
Or when there are warnings from Denmark: Look out, your are being bought by the Chinese! And the response is: Mind your own business!
That is an irritant.

Okay, so while there is no way the Danes will allow USA to buy Greenland. (you simply don't buy people and countries. That is so last millennium.) There is nevertheless a certain glee to be read in some of the comments sections, that I have seen.
And I dare say that should the Greenlanders of their own free will wish to be bought up by US investments or somehow wish to join USA in some way. I will without hesitation claim that the majority of Danes will say: Suit yourself then, bye, bye.
 
Perhaps if Trump does go through with the state visit to Denmark, as a welcoming gift, Queen Margrethe could give him a wonderful new set of Legos to play with? :hiding:
 
Osipi said:
Perhaps if Trump does go through with the state visit to Denmark, as a welcoming gift, Queen Margrethe could give him a wonderful new set of Legos to play with? :hiding:
Click to expand...

Today's photoshopped image was a child shouting out: "Look at me, look at me!"
 
Rudolph said:
Well I’m looking forward to this visit. It’s important NATO allies keep a close relationship. Denmark is a valued member of the alliance.
Click to expand...


Trump is not interested in NATO - some say he even wants to destroy it. So he, of all people, is not interested in keeping close NATO relationships at all...

By the way, is Denmark the only scandinavian country he will visit? Normally, when long travelling heads of state from Asia or the US visit europe, they do cover at least 2 countries or take part in a summit and do one state visit.
 
Last edited:
wartenberg7 said:
Trump is not interested in NATO - some say he even wants to destroy it. So he, of all people, is not interested in keeping close NATO relationships at all...

By the way, is Denmark the only scandinavian country he will visit? Normally, when long travelling heads of state from Asia or the US visit europe, they do cover at least 2 countries or take part in a summit and do one state visit.
Click to expand...

He is going to Poland first.
 
Poland is the only country outside of his MAGA rallies here in the US where he can draw huge, adoring crowds.

Wild horses wouldn't keep him away. :cool:
 
Last edited:
It appears there a few specific plans for what is going to happen when/if President Trump comes visiting in only two weeks.
Seemingly there are few if any wishes expressed from the US side as to what they would like to do, and few if any responses to the danish suggestions.

So what is clear is that there will be political talks and a gala dinner, these are a given thing anyway, but apart from that...?

So until anything new in that field surface, let's have a closer look at the President's arguments regarding Greenland.

Let us begin with the public reactions on the street and the workplaces. Surprisingly for me at least, it's hardly the talk of the town. It is mentioned with a few words at lunch or family gatherings, but apart from that the reaction, from my own experience, here in DK is pretty laid back.
Greenland is not for sale, so the whole thing is not taken seriously and as such hardly discussed.
Even on the main news, this comes as a second or third item.
It is of course a different matter in Greenland.

So would the Greenlanders be interested in a closer affiliation with USA? No doubt. But not as a part of USA.
To the point of being closer to USA than Denmark? Not in a foreseeable future IMO. We are talking at least two generations before that would happen, if it ever will.
It seems more likely to me that the Greenlanders will eventually join a kind of Arctic political league together with indigenous peoples from Canada, Alaska and perhaps Russia.

Can DK afford to keep subsidizing Greenland? - That has already been covered and the answer is yes.
Can DK afford to invest heavily in Greenland? - Now, that's a much more tricky question. Dk is already investing in Greenland, in particular the infrastructure and of course also with an increasing military presence there, which is about to be increased even more, with heavier ships and perhaps even fighters as well, according to the new government. That is going to be expensive but will also create jobs in Greenland, both for the locals as well as Danes.
But how about additional investments in regards to mining and businesses?
Well, the military investments are a direct response to the changed security situation in the Arctic and also very much a dear wish by both NATO and USA.
But apart from that, President Trump, does have a point.
DK can certainly afford to invest say 25 billion DKK (about 5 billion US Dollars) in Greenland over the next ten years or so. But it's a difficult one to sell for the Danish politicians. Because the Danes would immediately point out that such an investment is also very much needed in Denmark. We could easily use the money to recruit more health workers or police officers or build another bride between east and west-Denmark. Or simply to give the welfare system a much needed boost after more than a decade of tight budgets. (Which BTW is the reason DK got so lightly through the latest financial crisis.)
So investing heavily in Greenland for the money collected from Danish taxpayers is not something that will get you re-elected if your are a Danish politician!

But how about Danish businesses? Well, they have a better in depth knowledge of Greenland and fewer means to waste, so to speak, than some international companies.
A company like Mærsk, could well afford to invest in building a large modern port in Greenland, but it would be a bad investment. The largest town in Greenland holds 16.000 inhabitants. Way too few for a modern port to pay itself.
But how about fishing and tourism? Is there room for investments there?
Yes and no. - It's not attractive for Danish businesses. The Greenlanders can handle that well on their own, they just need a little Danish help in regards to international promotions and trade - and they get that. The DRF being instrumental in that regard BTW.
As for tourism. Tourists mainly go there, because the land is unspoiled. Who want's to go to Greenland only to stay at a hyper-modern hotel? A Greenland overrun by weekend-tourists flying in from USA by the plane-loads may be counter-productive in the end. - It's an area where investments can be made, the questions is whether there can be too many tourists?

Mining. That's not an area where Danish businesses have much experience and so far mining is not productive in Greenland. It is simply too expensive currently simply to mine anything, not to mention the logistics.
And again, there will be considerable opposition in Greenland against exploiting the resources too much.
The same goes for off-shore drilling. And this is a field where Danish and Norwegian business have considerable experience, but certainly in Denmark off shore drilling is rapidly becoming the energy-source of yesteryear. Currently Denmark export oil and gas from our own shores. But the oil-fields are being emptied and replaced by windmills.
So could Greenland become an exporter of sustainable energy? Wind, sun (they do have 24 hours of daylight in the summers there), wave-energy perhaps even thermal energy? Yes, very much so! But... there is a long way from Greenland to their customers in North America!
So until sustainable energy can be stored efficiently and transported by ship south that is out of the question.

So to sum up: The two biggest obstacles in regards to investments in Greenland is its low population and remoteness.
 
Last edited:
wartenberg7 said:
Trump is not interested in NATO - some say he even wants to destroy it. So he, of all people, is not interested in keeping close NATO relationships at all...

By the way, is Denmark the only scandinavian country he will visit? Normally, when long travelling heads of state from Asia or the US visit europe, they do cover at least 2 countries or take part in a summit and do one state visit.
Click to expand...


There are many Americans who would support the US leaving (stop supporting) the U.N. NATO would be on that list as well.



LaRae
 
Mining ore would have to be shipped out. That means a substantial port has to be built. Good roads to truck the ore body. You wouldn't use an existing port. Lots of infrastructure has to be built if / when mining companies go full steam ahead.
Mining companies are also looking to extracting uranium from Greenland. They have the go ahead for that from what I've read.
So lots of jobs in building and construction before any ore leaves the country.
I think the big consideration for mining companies before they invest millions/billions is the political climate between China and the USA.
Climate change is a given and the mining companies can adjust to that. But the Political climate is a bit wild west territory for them at the moment.
Deals and agreements don't appear to be worth much these days. Too much renegging going on.
JMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

iceflower
State Visit from Moldova to Norway: May 6 - 7, 2024
Replies
3
Views
555
Muhler
Muhler
iceflower
State Visit from the President of South Korea: November 21 - 23, 2023
2
Replies
55
Views
7K
muriel
muriel
iceflower
Official Visit from Norway to Denmark: June 15 - 16, 2023
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
polyesco
P
lula
State visit from Colombia to Spain. May 3-4, 2023
Replies
18
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
iceflower
State Visit from Italy to the Netherlands: November 9 - 11, 2022
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
iceflower
iceflower

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom