|
\u003cp\u003eWhere to begin on the subject of Donald Trump’s decision to call off a state visit to Denmark? He cancelled in one of last night’s tweets, ‘based on Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s comments, that she would have no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland…’\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eI might start by noting that there were other subjects I wanted to tackle in writing this week: the turmoil in American politics after Jerusalem barred two US Congresswomen from entering Israel; the conceptual place of racist mass murder, in El Paso and elsewhere, for defining terrorism as a threat to US national security; and the under-reported declaration from US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the Trump administration’s promotion of a hard Brexit with promises of a US–UK trade agreement should be considered void, because trade deals must be approved by Congress and Congress will not participate in damaging the Good Friday Agreement.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Greenland affair, by contrast, may be considered trivial. I’m not so sure. Since well before January 2017, our big problem of epistemology and analysis is that, by neglecting the daily dose of farce, we would ignore much of what is going on – and what’s going on is significant. The president of the United States indicated to aides that he would like to buy Greenland. They weren’t sure if this was a joke. Among his tweets on the subject was a photo of a golden Trump Tower superimposed on a Greenland village, with the helpful promise that he did not actually intend to build it. Prime Minister Frederiksen reacted with some measure of incredulity. So, the president of the United States pulled out. The Danish Royal House, official host for Trump’s planned visit, expressed ‘surprise’.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThere was a time, of course, covering much of American history, when the purchase of territory was an accepted tool of strategic expansion. Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase was an atypically peaceful step in America’s westward expansion. After its war of conquest took vast Mexican territory, the US paid $10 million for a bit more in the Gadsden Purchase. And after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, his secretary of state, William Seward, bought Alaska from the Russians; it was called his ‘folly’ at the time, but in history Seward gets the last laugh.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSometime during the twentieth century the acquisition of territory in this manner became less fashionable, in large part because the actual inhabitants of said territory are now presumed to have some greater say over the matter. That is one reason why America’s contemporary global role relies more on alliances than possessions. It happens that in a region of growing strategic rivalry – an Arctic being opened by climate change – the United States has a faithful treaty ally, Denmark, which is sovereign over the largest Arctic island.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThis might be considered a stroke of good luck. In managing alliances, however, it helps – in fact, it might seem like a basic requirement – that your allies take you seriously.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","className":"richtext reading--content font-secondary"}), document.getElementById("react_ddMdLN2KVkCXakcEH1xE8A"))});
\u003cp\u003eTrump\u0026rsquo;s recent decision to cancel a state visit to Denmark may be the final act in the \u0026lsquo;Greenland affair\u0026rsquo;. However, this latest diplomatic spat is far from a frivolous disagreement between two long-time allies. As Dana Allin argues, the incident may go on to have significant ramifications and raises questions on how seriously the United States, and its intentions, are taken by its allies.\u003c/p\u003e
|
