What's new

Donald Trump's Denmark snub over Greenland sale 'annoys' PM

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,991
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen says she is "annoyed" at Donald Trump's decision to cancel his visit after being told Greenland was not for sale.

"Our preparations were well under way," she said, adding she had been looking forward to meeting the US president.

Ms Frederiksen reiterated that the island of Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, could not be bought.

Mr Trump was scheduled to visit on 2 September at the invitation of Denmark's Queen Margrethe II.

But last week, he suggested that his administration was interested in buying Greenland - an idea that Ms Frederiksen at the time described as "absurd".

What has the Danish PM said now?
In a statement to reporters on Wednesday, Ms Frederiksen said the potential sale of Greenland had "clearly been rejected" by the island's leader, Kim Kielsen, which was "a position I share of course".

She said despite this, the US was one of Denmark's closest allies, and that the president's two-day visit would have been an "opportunity to celebrate Denmark's close relationship to the US".


Media captionThe Danish prime minister underlined her hope for continued strong relations with the US
"This does not change the character of our good relations and we will continue our dialogue on how we can deal with challenges we are facing," she said, adding that her country's invitation to visit "remains open".

"Developments in the Arctic call for further co-operation with the US, Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands, and I'd like to underline that still stands," Ms Frederiksen said.

While praising Denmark as a "very special country", Mr Trump said in a tweet on Tuesday that his planned visit would no longer go ahead because Ms Frederiksen had "no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland".

Greenland: What you need to know
Mr Trump had earlier confirmed reports that he was interested in buying Greenland. When asked on Sunday if he would consider trading a US territory for the island, he replied: "Well, a lot of things could be done."

"Essentially it's a large real estate deal," he said.

Then, on Monday, the US president posted an image on social media showing a tall golden skyscraper among the homes of a small village on the island.

How have Danes reacted?
The cancellation of what was considered an important state visit in Denmark was described as a "farce" by the leader of the populist Danish People's Party, Kristian Thulesen Dahl.

"What is this man thinking of though? And with grounds that are worthy of an April Fools' joke," he wrote in a tweet.

Danish Conservative MP Rasmus Jarlov accused Mr Trump of lacking respect for his country in a tweet on Wednesday.

Former foreign minister Kristian Jensen said Mr Trump's move had resulted in "total chaos".

"It has gone from a great opportunity for enhanced dialogue between allies to a diplomatic crisis," he said, adding: "Need to get the co-operation back on track."

A spokeswoman for the leftist Red-Green Alliance, Pernille Skipper, said: "Trump lives on another planet. Self-sufficient and disrespectful."

Pia Kjaersgaard, the populist former speaker of the Danish parliament, said it showed a "complete lack of respect", adding: "Rude behaviour to the Danish people and the Queen, who invited him."

Danish royal expert and historian Lars Hovbakke Sorensen said the whole episode was "very strange".

"This is a violation of all traditions and etiquettes and makes it seem like the Trump administration views state visits in a completely different way," he told Danish broadcaster TV2.

Why would Greenland appeal to Trump?
Mr Trump has reportedly taken an interest in Greenland, in part, because of its natural resources, such as coal, zinc, copper and iron ore.

But while Greenland might be rich in minerals, it currently relies on Denmark for two thirds of its budget revenue. It has high rates of suicide, alcoholism and unemployment.

Two people briefed on the discussions told the New York Times the president was also interested in Greenland's "national security value" because of its location.

The US has long seen the island, which sits along a direct route from Europe to North America, as being strategically important. It established the Thule air force and radar base there at the start of the Cold War, which now covers space surveillance and forms the northernmost part of the US ballistic missile early warning system.

Meanwhile, new Arctic sea routes are opening up as climate change continues to accelerate the melting of ice in the region.

Is the Arctic set to become a main shipping route?
Mr Trump's latest bid also comes at a time that China is taking a big interest in the area. Last year, a Chinese state-owned construction company announced plans to build new airports in Greenland - but withdrew them in June this year.

Republican Representative Mike Gallagher described Mr Trump's idea as a "smart geopolitical move".

"The United States has a compelling strategic interest in Greenland, and this should absolutely be on the table," he tweeted.

Where exactly is Greenland?
Greenland is the largest island in the world – after Australia, which is defined as a continent in its own right.

It is an autonomous Danish territory, located between the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans.

It has a population of about 56,000 people concentrated around the coastline. Almost 90% are indigenous Greenlandic Inuit people. It has a limited self-government and its own parliament.

The stark photo highlighting Greenland’s ice loss
'Why I translate all of Trump's tweets into Chinese'
More than 80% of the island is covered by an ice cap which is feared to be melting due to global warming. The ice melt has increased access to the island's mineral resources.

But it is also believed that the receding ice may expose toxic nuclear waste that was left at several US military sites during the Cold War.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49423968
 
He is an entertainer. The guts to go ask to sell Greenland and then snub after being snubbed. Pure alpha and hilarious.
 
He is an entertainer. The guts to go ask to sell Greenland and then snub after being snubbed. Pure alpha and hilarious.

How did he even come up with that idea?
 
How did he even come up with that idea?

Not the first time US has floated an idea to purchase Greenland.

But snubbing a visit just because someone do not want to sell you an Island is sad not entertaining.
 
Trump is a crybaby.

If Denmark doesn't want to sell, Trump should respect it.

Canceling meeting over this is stupid.
 
Trump always says something stupid that makes the headlines, a good way to distract people from the real issues. Economists are predicting a recession in 2020 or 2021, looks like the trade war with China didn't pay off.
 
Last edited:
Greenland seems pretty underdeveloped and probably will benefit a lot economically if it became part of the US. Certainly US real estate people will go crazy putting up resorts which will be packed in the summer months.

It is not as if Greenland would be joining an underdeveloped country. US per cap GDP is about 20% more than Denmark's. If there was a referendum in Greenland there is a fair chance they would choose to join the US.

The US has bought land before, famous examples being the Louisiana Purchase, and Alaska.

The Danish PM could have been a bit more diplomatic, and said something like "We are not considering selling at this time", instead she said "absurd" which is somewhat insulting.
 
Greenland seems pretty underdeveloped and probably will benefit a lot economically if it became part of the US. Certainly US real estate people will go crazy putting up resorts which will be packed in the summer months.

It is not as if Greenland would be joining an underdeveloped country. US per cap GDP is about 20% more than Denmark's. If there was a referendum in Greenland there is a fair chance they would choose to join the US.

The US has bought land before, famous examples being the Louisiana Purchase, and Alaska.

The Danish PM could have been a bit more diplomatic, and said something like "We are not considering selling at this time", instead she said "absurd" which is somewhat insulting.

It's rich in Oil and minerals. Plus lots of land and we'll effectively surround Canada.
 
Denmark is a rich welfare state, Greenlanders will not want to join a state that can't provide any thing Denmark can. Also Greenlandic people are not white, they're Inuits and wouldn't want to be governed by a racist.
 
How did he even come up with that idea?

It was an old idea but somebody in his team leaked that he was speculating about it a while ago. Everybody thought it was a joke. Hilarious
 
Trump always says something stupid that makes the headlines, a good way to distract people from the real issues. Economists are predicting a recession in 2020 or 2021, looks like the trade war with China didn't pay off.

US can withstand recession. China can't. Its a global slow down
 
Greenland seems pretty underdeveloped and probably will benefit a lot economically if it became part of the US. Certainly US real estate people will go crazy putting up resorts which will be packed in the summer months.

It is not as if Greenland would be joining an underdeveloped country. US per cap GDP is about 20% more than Denmark's. If there was a referendum in Greenland there is a fair chance they would choose to join the US.

The US has bought land before, famous examples being the Louisiana Purchase, and Alaska.

The Danish PM could have been a bit more diplomatic, and said something like "We are not considering selling at this time", instead she said "absurd" which is somewhat insulting.

Is this post a joke? Like your legitimately are ready to "sell" a persons identity for money? It's like money trumps over your heritage/culture/identity?

For a start these people are Greenlandic and have their own heritage and for all money is not all (case in point like your thinking). For the bolded part see video below and many other like it.


I'm going to go a bit off topic now but its important to highlight your way of thinking here as its quite evident in how residents from rest of India describe the current change in Kashmir.

From your post you have "assumed" Greenlandic people will be happy for Trump, the same way when you defend the Kashmir argument you "assume" that this is for benefit for Kashmir.

Also you are assuming "money" is ace that can trump over identity/heritage/culture/etc. You feel if you shower money you literally can buy anything off which is why you assume should you show Greenlandic people money they would side with Trump and promise of money and development in Kashmir will make Kashmiris side with Modi. You are naive to the fact/argument that for people identity matters more than money or perhaps this is the way rest of India thinks now.
 
Is this post a joke? Like your legitimately are ready to "sell" a persons identity for money? It's like money trumps over your heritage/culture/identity?

For a start these people are Greenlandic and have their own heritage and for all money is not all (case in point like your thinking). For the bolded part see video below and many other like it.


I'm going to go a bit off topic now but its important to highlight your way of thinking here as its quite evident in how residents from rest of India describe the current change in Kashmir.

From your post you have "assumed" Greenlandic people will be happy for Trump, the same way when you defend the Kashmir argument you "assume" that this is for benefit for Kashmir.

Also you are assuming "money" is ace that can trump over identity/heritage/culture/etc. You feel if you shower money you literally can buy anything off which is why you assume should you show Greenlandic people money they would side with Trump and promise of money and development in Kashmir will make Kashmiris side with Modi. You are naive to the fact/argument that for people identity matters more than money or perhaps this is the way rest of India thinks now.

How do you know that the two persons in the video are representative of the entire Greenland population?

Also, I was living in Greenland, I would to move to NYC, Vegas, LA, SFO etc.
 
I'm going to go a bit off topic now but its important to highlight your way of thinking here as its quite evident in how residents from rest of India describe the current change in Kashmir.

From your post you have "assumed" Greenlandic people will be happy for Trump, the same way when you defend the Kashmir argument you "assume" that this is for benefit for Kashmir.

Also you are assuming "money" is ace that can trump over identity/heritage/culture/etc. You feel if you shower money you literally can buy anything off which is why you assume should you show Greenlandic people money they would side with Trump and promise of money and development in Kashmir will make Kashmiris side with Modi. You are naive to the fact/argument that for people identity matters more than money or perhaps this is the way rest of India thinks now.

As for comparisons to Kashmir, you need to think a bit before you offer such comparisons.

About 300 years ago (1721), Denmark-Norway sent a religious mission to Greenland to baptize the inhabitants. They converted the natives (Inuits) living there.

The Inuits do not throw stones at the police, nor do they become suicide bombers. Apparently "identity/heritage/culture/etc." did not prevent them from becoming a part of Denmark. If you want Greenland to be a model for Kashmir, I am sure Indians would support you.
 
Trump is a crybaby.

If Denmark doesn't want to sell, Trump should respect it.

Canceling meeting over this is stupid.

On the flip side, isn't Trump allowed to cancel out of his own free will and Denmark should respect that?
 
On the flip side, isn't Trump allowed to cancel out of his own free will and Denmark should respect that?

Thing is, Trump is leader of a country. He should act like one.

I can act like an idiot when I am a nobody. But, I should show responsibility when I am leader of a nation.
 
Greenland seems pretty underdeveloped and probably will benefit a lot economically if it became part of the US. Certainly US real estate people will go crazy putting up resorts which will be packed in the summer months.

It is not as if Greenland would be joining an underdeveloped country. US per cap GDP is about 20% more than Denmark's. If there was a referendum in Greenland there is a fair chance they would choose to join the US.

The US has bought land before, famous examples being the Louisiana Purchase, and Alaska.

The Danish PM could have been a bit more diplomatic, and said something like "We are not considering selling at this time", instead she said "absurd" which is somewhat insulting.

Yes Greenlanders will say no to free medical health care, free education(primary, high school, higher education) 5 weeks paid vication every year and so many other befinets if they join USA. Denmark is a welfare state. A much better nation for poor and middle class then USA will ever be.
 
As for comparisons to Kashmir, you need to think a bit before you offer such comparisons.

About 300 years ago (1721), Denmark-Norway sent a religious mission to Greenland to baptize the inhabitants. They converted the natives (Inuits) living there.

The Inuits do not throw stones at the police, nor do they become suicide bombers. Apparently "identity/heritage/culture/etc." did not prevent them from becoming a part of Denmark. If you want Greenland to be a model for Kashmir, I am sure Indians would support you.

Greenland want to be independent as well. Denmark is not standing in their way or sending billions of troops to Greenland to torture and kill them.

Greenland can however not sustain without economic help of Denmark atm. And this is the main reason it's not independent yet.
 
As for comparisons to Kashmir, you need to think a bit before you offer such comparisons.

About 300 years ago (1721), Denmark-Norway sent a religious mission to Greenland to baptize the inhabitants. They converted the natives (Inuits) living there.

The Inuits do not throw stones at the police, nor do they become suicide bombers. Apparently "identity/heritage/culture/etc." did not prevent them from becoming a part of Denmark. If you want Greenland to be a model for Kashmir, I am sure Indians would support you.

Inuits converted to Christianity like how Kashmiris converted to Islam yet Indians claim Muslims are foreign to Kashmir and should leave.

You shouldn't even compare Greenland to India's occupation of Kashmir, Greenland is a lot of autonomy, they're an autonomous territory. In comparison Kashmir has lost all of it's autonomy after India repelled Article 370, moreover they've been under Presidents-rule for over a year now. If you think Greenland is a good model for Kashmir, then India should give Kashmir the same autonomy Greenland has.
 
Is this post a joke? Like your legitimately are ready to "sell" a persons identity for money? It's like money trumps over your heritage/culture/identity?

For a start these people are Greenlandic and have their own heritage and for all money is not all (case in point like your thinking). For the bolded part see video below and many other like it.


I'm going to go a bit off topic now but its important to highlight your way of thinking here as its quite evident in how residents from rest of India describe the current change in Kashmir.

From your post you have "assumed" Greenlandic people will be happy for Trump, the same way when you defend the Kashmir argument you "assume" that this is for benefit for Kashmir.

Also you are assuming "money" is ace that can trump over identity/heritage/culture/etc. You feel if you shower money you literally can buy anything off which is why you assume should you show Greenlandic people money they would side with Trump and promise of money and development in Kashmir will make Kashmiris side with Modi. You are naive to the fact/argument that for people identity matters more than money or perhaps this is the way rest of India thinks now.

I agree with what you're saying but we have Inuits too, Alaska is home of Inuit/Eskimo people who are almost the same as the native Greenlandic people.
 
How can you get triggered by the Danish PM of all people ?

This supposed "alpha male" that "tells it like it is" must be one of the most thin skinned leaders in history.
 
Greenland want to be independent as well. Denmark is not standing in their way or sending billions of troops to Greenland to torture and kill them.

Greenland can however not sustain without economic help of Denmark atm. And this is the main reason it's not independent yet.

The Indian Central Government also sends a lot of aid to Kashmir.

About 12% of Greenland's population is non-Intuit. The Intuits however didn't carry out an ethnic cleansing of this population like the Kashmiri Pandits were subjected to.
 
Inuits converted to Christianity like how Kashmiris converted to Islam yet Indians claim Muslims are foreign to Kashmir and should leave.

You need to stop paying attention to the loonies. The Indian government never said the Kashmiri Muslims need to leave Kashmir.

You shouldn't even compare Greenland to India's occupation of Kashmir, Greenland is a lot of autonomy, they're an autonomous territory. In comparison Kashmir has lost all of it's autonomy after India repelled Article 370, moreover they've been under Presidents-rule for over a year now. If you think Greenland is a good model for Kashmir, then India should give Kashmir the same autonomy Greenland has.

Kashmir is under President's rule because of the attack on security forces. Once the attacks cease the power will be returned to the elected politicians.
 
You need to stop paying attention to the loonies. The Indian government never said the Kashmiri Muslims need to leave Kashmir.



Kashmir is under President's rule because of the attack on security forces. Once the attacks cease the power will be returned to the elected politicians.

It's not just about presidents-rule, Greenland has a lot more autonomy whereas Kashmir has been gradually losing its for the past 70 years and the recent Article 370 was the last nail in the coffin.

Greenland has something called Home rule, since you want to use Greenland as example why not extend that to Kashmir?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule

Denmark even allows Greenland the excercise the right to self-determinism whenever they want.
As part of the self-rule law of 2009 (section §21), Greenland can declare full independence if they wish to pursue it, but it would have to be approved by a referendum among the Greenlandic people.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_independence#Moves_towards_independence

I guess you were right, Greenland should be a role model for Kashmir and an example of how India should treat autonomous regions.
 
How can you get triggered by the Danish PM of all people ?

This supposed "alpha male" that "tells it like it is" must be one of the most thin skinned leaders in history.

You know some guys who puff out their chest and act macho unnecessarily but are actually very insecure and over compensating for something else? That is how our current President is - and I'm saying that full candor as a patriotic American.
 
It's not just about presidents-rule, Greenland has a lot more autonomy whereas Kashmir has been gradually losing its for the past 70 years and the recent Article 370 was the last nail in the coffin.

Greenland has something called Home rule, since you want to use Greenland as example why not extend that to Kashmir?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule

Denmark even allows Greenland the excercise the right to self-determinism whenever they want.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_independence#Moves_towards_independence

I guess you were right, Greenland should be a role model for Kashmir and an example of how India should treat autonomous regions.

Obviously the parallels between Greenland and Kashmir break down when you consider the fact that Inuits didn't repeatedly massacre non-Inuit women and children to drive 300,000 non-Inuits away from Greenland.

My comparing Greenland to Kashmir was to suggest that the Kashmiris stop the violence, rather than the Indian government act like the Danish government which it cannot do as obviously violence creates a different environment.
 
Obviously the parallels between Greenland and Kashmir break down when you consider the fact that Inuits didn't repeatedly massacre non-Inuit women and children to drive 300,000 non-Inuits away from Greenland.

My comparing Greenland to Kashmir was to suggest that the Kashmiris stop the violence, rather than the Indian government act like the Danish government which it cannot do as obviously violence creates a different environment.

Kashmiris were being murdered and raped by Indian soldiers before anything happened to the Pandits also in Greenland the non-Inuits weren't in control of most of the land and government jobs, the Pandits were the privileged class since the Sikh empire up until the 90s - they worked to oppress Kashmiri muslims. I'd compare Kashmir to East Pakistan where minorities were only killed until after the genocide of the majority group.
 
Kashmiris were being murdered and raped by Indian soldiers before anything happened to the Pandits also in Greenland the non-Inuits weren't in control of most of the land and government jobs, the Pandits were the privileged class since the Sikh empire up until the 90s - they worked to oppress Kashmiri muslims. I'd compare Kashmir to East Pakistan where minorities were only killed until after the genocide of the majority group.

Why stop at 20 years? Go back 40 years, 80 years, 800 years. You will find lots of murders, rapes and ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir.

Your justification for the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pandits is weak.
 
Last edited:
Why stop at 20 years? Go back 40 years, 80 years, 800 years. You will find lots of murders, rapes and ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Kashmir.

Your justification for the ethnic cleansing of the Kashmiri Pandits is weak.

Exactly why stop at 20 years, 70 years ago Muslims were cleansed out of Jammu, prior to that throughout the Sikh and Dogra rule Muslims were murdered, raped, taxed and forced to migrate. There's no justification for happened to the Pandits but it's not like Indians have not justified the murder of Kashmiris recently or even prior to partition, it's not like India didn't justify the massacres of non-Bengalis in East Pakistan by militants supported by India.
 
Exactly why stop at 20 years, 70 years ago Muslims were cleansed out of Jammu, prior to that throughout the Sikh and Dogra rule Muslims were murdered, raped, taxed and forced to migrate. There's no justification for happened to the Pandits but it's not like Indians have not justified the murder of Kashmiris recently or even prior to partition, it's not like India didn't justify the massacres of non-Bengalis in East Pakistan by militants supported by India.

Your recounting of history is extremely selective.

Anyway, you seem to at least realize that allegations of atrocities whether true or not have always been there in history. No one is forcing Muslim Kashmiris to migrate out of India, in fact their numbers have trebled in the last 70 years.

All the talk of mass rape and murder by Indian troops is not believed by Indians and even most foreign nations, so these allegations are not useful. Troops who fire and kill when terrorists attack are not murderers in the opinion of most people.

Kashmiris need to make use of the democratic rights they have in India (which would be diluted if they joined the military dominated Pakistan) and become prosperous by putting to use the fantastic tourism resources they have.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top