Loading summary
Transcript13 lines
- [00:00]
Soundcore Advertiser
Enjoy a brilliant sleep experience with Soundcore from Anker. Stressed out by your partner's snoring? Having trouble falling asleep? Waking up too easily? Suffering from poor quality sleep? Now put on Soundcore Sleep A20 earbuds. Experience unparalleled pressure free comfort perfect for side sleepers. Choose your favorite sound in your curated playlist. Feel your body getting lighter and lighter and enjoy a full night of peaceful sleep with the A20's long lasting battery. Then wake up feeling fresh with a personal built in alarm. Get the sleep you deserve with Soundcore Sleep A20 earbuds. Discover more on soundcore.coms o u N D C O R E Soundcore Use code sleep at Checkout to get $30 off S L E E P in all caps.
- [00:55]
Isaac Saul
From executive producer Isaac Saul this is T Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening and welcome to the Tangle Podcast, a place we get views from across the political spectrum, some independent thinking, and a little bit of my take. I'm your host Isaac Saul, and on today's episode we're going to be talking about Trump's comments about Greenland. Pretty interesting story here and maybe I have a take that you might not expect. So excited to dig into that. Before we jump in though, I just want to give a quick apology. Yesterday the podcast was published without our left and right arguments included. We updated the version of the podcast, but it was up for a few hours without the whole center part of the podcast that includes what the left and the right were saying. It's just a uploading kind of editing mistake that happened. So apologies for those of you who caught that version of the episode. And thanks to the listeners who wrote in and let us know that something was up. We appreciate it. It's always nice to know that you guys are listening closely. All right, with that, I'm going to pass it over to John to break down today's main story and I'll be back for my take.
- [02:22]
John
Thanks, Isaac and Welco. Welcome everybody. Here are your quick hits for today. First up, confirmation hearings for President Elect Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees began this week with hearings on Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Veterans affairs nominee Doug Collins, and Secretary of the Interior nominee Doug Burgum starting Tuesday. Number two, the National Weather Service issued a particularly dangerous situation warning for parts of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, citing hazardous fire weather conditions created by wind gusts. The Palisades and Eaton fires continue to burn with 14% and 33% containment, respectively. Number three, Qatar delivered a finalized draft of a ceasefire and hostage release deal to Israel and Hamas negotiators, raising the prospect of an agreement to pause the fighting in Gaza as early as this week. Number four, the US government extended the deadline for Nippon Steel to cancel its planned acquisition of US Steel, giving the company until June to potentially advance a different version of the deal that President Joe Biden and blocked. And number five, global oil prices surged following new sanctions on Russia's energy sector unveiled by the Biden administration last week. Now it's the world's largest island, but Greenland is home to only 57,000 people, many of whom will be talking about just one subject this week. Donald Trump, the US President elect, refused to rule out using military force to take control of the island, describing it as critical to America's national security.
- [04:04]
Soundcore Advertiser
Today, President Elect Trump's allies in Congress proposed a new bill dubbed Make Greenland Great Again. It's meant to expedite a negotiation process with Denmark, which protects Greenland's autonomy. Given Mr. Trump's repeated desire to buy the Arctic territory.
- [04:23]
John
In recent weeks, President Elect Donald Trump has reiterated his desire to acquire Greenland in an effort to expand US territory and influence, calling its acquisition an absolute necessity. In response to questions from the press last week, Trump said that he would not rule out using military or economic pressure to acquire the territory after he takes office, drawing strong rebukes from Democrats and European allies. Greenland, the world's largest island, is currently an autonomous territory of Denmark. The though its population of 56,000 citizens has recently shown support for full independence. Roughly 80% of the island is covered in ice and snow, and the majority of its population lives in five towns. Erik the Red became the first European to discover Greenland in 982 after being banished from Iceland. The island was populated mostly by Vikings for centuries, though by 1600 the Norse settlements had disappeared and sparsely inhabited by the Inuit by the 17th century. Denmark began colonizing the island in 1721, then granted the territory home rule in 1979, though it now has its own government and prime minister currently Mut Ajid Hopefully I'm pronouncing that right. Greenland remains part of Denmark. Trump floated the possibility of acquiring Greenland in his first term and has now returned to the idea. His desire is not without precedent. The US first attempted to buy Greenland in 1868, and Harry S. Truman pursued a deal in 1946. The US even took protective custody over Greenland during World War II. Trump reportedly views the issue as a potential legacy defining achievement comparable to Alaska and Hawaii becoming US states in 1949 under Dwight D. Eisenhower. Greenland is appealing for both military and economic reasons. The island is rich in critical minerals key to wind farms, magnets, tanks, chip making, artificial intelligence and more. Geographically, it is placed near burgeoning trade routes becoming available due to Arctic ice melt, and is already home to one US Military base. Finally, US Trade rivals like China have already pursued mining and economic partnerships with the island. Trump's comments received stiff criticism from European allies like France and Germany, who warned of destabilizing territorial disputes at a time when Russia and China are pursuing Ukraine and Taiwan. Prime Minister Aguid, meanwhile, has insisted the island is not for sale and it will decide its own future on its own terms. However, Agid said on Monday that the country is looking to strengthen its defense and mining ties with the US Today we're going to explore some arguments about Trump's pursuit of Greenland from the left and the right, and then Isaac's take.
- [07:14]
Isaac Saul
Foreign we'll be right back after this quick break.
- [07:27]
Soundcore Advertiser
Enjoy a brilliant sleep experience with Soundcore from Anker Stressed out by your partner's snoring? Having trouble falling asleep? Waking up too easily? Suffering from poor quality sleep? Now put on Soundcore Sleep A20 earbuds. Experience unparalleled pressure free comfort perfect for side sleepers. Choose your favorite sound in your curated playlist, feel your body getting lighter and lighter and enjoy a full night of peaceful sleep with the A20's long lasting battery. Then wake up feeling fresh with a personal built in alarm. Get the sleep you deserve with Soundcore Sleep A20 earbuds. Discover more on soundcore.com s o u n d c o r e Soundcore use code sleep at checkout to get $30 off s l E E P in all caps.
- [08:23]
John
All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left is critical of Trump's proposal, with many suggesting that his rhetoric alone could destabilize U.S. alliances. Some say the U.S. should expand its relationship with Greenland, even if buying it is off the table. Others criticized Trump's openness using military force for territorial gains. In Vox, Josh Keating wrote about the real danger of Trump's Greenland gambit. Trump first publicly discussed the idea of the United States purchasing the world's largest island back in 2019. During his first term, the idea was rejected out of hand by the government of Denmark. At the time, Keating said how serious Trump is now is known to him alone, but he has not let the idea go as he prepares to return to the White House. The Greenland proposal comes alongside Trump's repeated Is he joking or not? Suggestions that Canada be made the 51st state and demands that Panama return control of the Panama Canal altogether, an agenda for territorial expansion on a level not seen since the James K. Polk administration in the mid 19th century. None of these reasons why Greenland is strategically important for the United States explain why it needs to be part of the United States. American companies, including a new mining venture backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, are already investing in Greenland's minerals. The US Also already has a military base in the country, Keating wrote. The US Benefits from Greenland being under the jurisdiction of a friendly NATO ally. In 2017, the Danish government blocked an effort by a Chinese mining company to acquire an abandoned military base in Greenland, in part out of a desire to maintain good relations with the U.S. these are the sort of relations that are potentially threatened by publicly musing about annexing a territory by force. In Bloomberg, James Stavridi suggested Trump is right, Greenland is vital to US national security. In 2019, the Prime Minister of Greenland had an excellent response. Greenland is not for sale, but we are open for business. We ought to take his point. Trump is right about one thing. Greenland, with its 56,000 people and an expanse larger than Mexico, is an immensely valuable piece of real estate, stavridis wrote. There are three principal reasons for the island's geopolitical importance. First, it is a vital element of the Greenland Iceland UK gap that guards the northern approaches to the Atlantic Ocean from Russian naval forces. Second, Greenland has important natural resources, including likely deposits of heavy and light rare earth minerals, including neodymium and dysprosium, both vital for computing and green energy. Finally, climate change will make most vast areas of Greenland more temperate. Over time, there may be significant agrarian potential. Ecotourism is already providing a significant economic benefit and could grow exponentially, stavridis wrote. Given that no sale or military annexation is in the offing, the best approach for Washington is furthering the military, diplomatic and economic ties that it already has with Greenland and Denmark. This would not only benefit all parties, but would box out China and Russia. In msnbc, Zashin Aleem said, any way you look at it, Trump's threats of war expose the scam of America. First, Trump has recently floated far fetched proposals to buy Greenland and wrest back control of the Panama Canal. In response to a question from a reporter at the news conference about what he'd be willing to do to secure them, Trump said something that sounded more dire. He refused to rule out military or economic coercion to obtain Greenland or the Panama Canal, alim wrote. The United States is the richest and most powerful country in the world, dominating trade routes, institutions and agreements around the globe. The idea that it needs ownership of the mostly frozen island of Greenland for economic security is ludicrous. One can only conclude that by floating the idea of possible wars, Trump is in some sense defrauding the public. If he's not being serious about being willing to take military action, then his language is the kind of false bravado that depletes the United States credibility and makes him look like a witless cowboy. And if Trump is serious, which I believe is unlikely, then he's undermining all of his talk about how America first means opposing endless war. Trump has no mandate for arbitrarily returning the United States to a new era of old school colonialism and annexation. Alright, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. The right is mixed on the proposal, Though many say Trump's ambitions are rooted in countering China. Some argue the US should be looking to shrink, not grow, its territorial holdings. Others suggest alternate ways to foster deeper economic and military ties with Greenland without needing to own it. In the New York Post, Mark Toth and Jonathan Sweet said Trump's Greenland push is about the growing China threat. It's about China, stupid. President Elect Trump's answer to an I got you question is capturing all of the headlines his refusal to rule out military force in the Panama Canal. But many in the media are missing its intended messaging, toth and Sweet wrote. Trump and his incoming national security team are putting Chinese President Xi Jinping on notice. They are essentially telling him and the rest of the world we see what Beijing is aiming to economically and militarily achieve in the Western Hemisphere. Canada, Greenland, the Panama Canal and even the Drake Passage at the end of the world are all interconnected. China is their common denominator. It is the 21st century version of the Monroe Doctrine, and it is coming at a time when China is increasingly asserting itself on the global stage. Beijing is working to strangle economically and militarily US Maritime and naval sea routes by controlling key chokepoints and naval transit routes tothen, Sweet said. As is his custom, Trump is arguing the case against Beijing in largely economic terms. However, the impetus for his argument is primarily driven by China and its dual track approach to building a global military projection force. Greenland may appear to most Americans to be an isolated concern, yet the Danish territory will play an increasingly vital role in US national security in the decades ahead. In Cato, Doug Bandau called Trump's proposal nonsense, tempting as it might be to use Washington's undoubted hard power to acquire more territory. Making America great again would be better achieved by shrinking rather than expanding the nation's borders. When it comes to countries, bigger is not always better, bandao wrote. There are legitimate security issues at play in Panama, Canada and Greenland, but none require U.S. control. The Panama Canal functioned even during the Noriega dictatorship. Today, the country is democratic and stable. Diplomatic suasion and economic aid should be enough to avoid future hostile management of the facility. Washington need not occupy the island it already hosts America's northernmost military facility space base. Neither a Chinese nor a Russian invasion is likely, and most threats can be confronted from afar, Bandao said. Donald Trump was elected by challenging and ever aggrandizing the Washington elite, which views bigger government as always better government. He shouldn't fall into a similar trap of wanting the US to ever expand. Trump should focus on cutting Washington down to size in both domestic and foreign affairs. In National Review, Henry Olson wrote about an alternative to buying Greenland that could actually work. America is not buying Greenland from Denmark. There is nevertheless another way to secure our vital security interests in the vast island nation that is much more realistic. Signing a compact of free association, Olson said. The United States has three such treaties with the Republic of Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands. The US Supplies each with economic aid and access to many government programs such as Medicaid. Imports from these countries are largely tariff free and citizens of these nations can live and work in the United States. In exchange, the US Handles all defense obligations. It can exclude other nations militaries, has certain rights to station troops and establish bases, and can operate its military forces within these nations boundaries, olson wrote. This would meet the American desire to keep China and to a lesser extent Russia out of its backyard. The Arctic Ocean ice is rapidly melting, making the Arctic sea lanes viable for shipping. China has shown a keen interest in the region, establishing a polar Silk Road program to encourage its dominance in this increasingly important part of the world. All right, let's head over to Isaac for his take.
- [17:21]
Isaac Saul
All right, that is it for what the left and the right are saying. Which brings us to my take. So for those of you who are listeners to the Sunday podcast, I sort of spoiled my view on this with a rant on the podcast that came out on Sunday. But sitting down writing the My take section for me is always a space where I get to articulate my views in a more organized manner. So here goes. I think Trump is right to be thinking about Greenland. Before I explain why, let me say from the jump that this story is a great example of how frustrating Trump can be for someone like me with moderate politics. He's broaching an important subject, US influence in Greenland, and his instincts are right we should have a stronger relationship with them. He's also approaching it in a way that very few buttoned up politicians would, making it a front page story. And his approach is just novel enough that it might work. Greenland is, after all, already playing nice, and yet he can't do a basic thing like bring this debate into the public sphere without ruling out the possibility of using our military, an absurd prospect, or riffing on scratching out the border between U.S. and Canada, an obvious troll of Justin Trudeau, if you ask me. Which gives his opponents easy ammunition to shoot down the entire notion, thus poisoning the well for something that should otherwise be an important debate. So now Trump has championed what I think is a worthwhile cause, a potential acquisition of Greenland, but in a way that immediately makes it a divisive issue. Here's the reality, though. Greenland's geography alone makes it strategically important, which should be true even in calmer times, just for its political shipping routes and proximity to Russia's Siberian waters. But it's even more important now, with Russia on the march in Europe and China already working for inroads in Greenland. It is home to 30 of the 50 minerals the US government has defined as critical for developing future technologies, minerals that we mostly rely on adversaries to acquire today. While I have no interest in seeing US plunder Greenland for natural resources, a preposterously beautiful and wild place, I'm also realistic enough to know that China and Russia are already headed in that direction. I'd rather US have control over the environmental process than them. Do I think we will or even should buy Greenland? No. But I also don't think it is all that harebrained to imagine Greenlanders wanting to have more formal ties with the US or even being open to being a US territory. Yes, the current prime minister and current population is moving toward independence. Yes, Greenlanders should be the ones deciding their future, and yes, it is unlikely that their future is as a US state or territory. But also, we could fit the entire population of Greenland into Heinz Field. A charm offensive could easily move a majority of 56,000 people toward wanting to become a US state or territory down the line. This does not have to be colonialism or imperialism or any other bad sounding word. Greenland is an autonomous territory with democratically elected leaders who, if they believe it is good for their country, might favor selling all or part of their territory to the United States. Or, as Henry Olson suggested under what the Right Is Saying, they could simply want to develop deeper economic and military ties with us, like what we have with some Pacific island nations today. Just as Eisenhower wasn't insane for seeing the value of Alaska and Hawaii, Trump is not insane for seeing the value of Greenland. He's just crazy enough to actually try it, which is part of his appeal. Obviously, making a play for Greenland has enormous risks. For one, Trump's language about artificially drawn lines among nations and his simple insistence that we must take another country is precisely the kind of thing Putin says about Ukraine and Xi Jinping says about Taiwan. The differences should be obvious. Ukraine and Taiwan intentionally broke away from the version of the countries that preceded modern China and Russia, and Putin has already killed tens of thousands of people, while she potentially would have to kill an order of magnitude more to take Taiwan. Yet an American president's words, echoing leaders like Xi and Putin, does have an impact globally, and his critics are right that this matters. Also, the effectiveness of the madman theory of Trump is often exaggerated. As Fareed Zakaria put it, the idea is that the president, appearing unpredictable or even irrational, throws off our adversaries, an idea I subscribe to, but it does not always hold true. In Trump's first term, he attempted to intimidate Kim Jong Un with threats of nuclear war, and then the two seemingly became patterns while North Korea's nuclear arsenal and missile tests continued and advanced. However, the critics mostly focus on how Trump is going about this and don't address the main point. Greenland is a large and sparsely inhabited island in a critically important region where U.S. adversaries are making inroads. It's currently transitioning away from its long standing relationship with Denmark, a European country and a U.S. ally, and its prime minister at the very least seems open to playing ball. If we could flip a switch and simply make it a US territory, it would obviously be smart to do so. Any country in the world would say yes to that. Short of such simplicity, though, it seems genuinely worth investing some political capital in deepening our relationship with Greenland's government, increasing our presence there, or pursuing some kind of grand acquisition. And I don't think everyone's knee jerk reaction should be that Trump is an idiot for suggesting it, even if I think his approach can be self defeating. We'll be right back after this quick break.
- [23:03]
Soundcore Advertiser
Enjoy a brilliant sleep experience with Soundcore from Anchor Stressed out by your partner's snoring? Having trouble falling asleep? Waking up too easily? Suffering from poor quality sleep now. Now put on Soundcore Sleep A20 earbuds. Experience unparalleled pressure free comfort perfect for side sleepers. Choose your favorite sound in your curated playlist, feel your body getting lighter and lighter and enjoy a full night of peaceful sleep with the A20's long lasting battery. Then wake up feeling fresh with a personal built in alarm. Get the sleep you deserve with Soundcore Sleep A20 earbuds. Discover more on soundcore.s o u N D C O R E Soundcore Use code sleep at Checkout to get $30 off S L E E P in all caps.
- [24:00]
Isaac Saul
All right, that is it for my take. Which brings us to your questions answered. This one is from Eliana in Plano, Texas. Liana said do you think there is a chance a Trump administration would try to push something like Canada's Bill C24, which created a two tiered citizenship system? Do you know if they've expressed any interest in doing something like that? So let's start with what Bill C24 is. In 2014, during then Prime Minister Stephen Harper's term, Canada passed Bill C24, the snappily named act, to amend the Citizenship act and to make consequential amendments to other acts. This bill introduced several reforms to the immigration system, such as strengthening residency requirements for anyone asking for Canadian citizenship. But one change in particular received the most scrutiny, allowing the state to revoke Canadian citizenship from dual citizens who were convicted of fraud, treason, spying, serving in an armed force in conflict with Canada, or terrorism in Canada or abroad. The new law was the target of a lot of debate. Supporters said it would prevent Canadians of convenience from claiming Canadian dual citizenship without having any ties or desire to be part of Canada. Opponents said it created two classes of citizenship and provided the government a flimsy excuse to revoke the citizenship of recent immigrants. Ultimately, the controversial aspects of the bill were repealed shortly after Justin Trudeau was elected prime minister. Personally, I think describing the law as creating two tiered citizenship is an enormous overstatement, but it seemed like the repeal relegated the debate to the dustbin of history. Could Donald Trump enact a similar law here? I doubt it. For starters, C24 targeted people accused of treason or other national security offenses, which would complicate the process for political asylees and refugees who come here after being falsely accused of crimes in their homeland. Second, while the exact number of dual citizens in the US Is unknown, it's estimated to be several million, so any law targeting them would be a charged political issue. And third, Donald Trump's wife, Melania and son Barron are dual citizens of Slovenia, and Trump hasn't proposed any plans targeting dual citizens. Instead, his immigration reform focus has been almost entirely on unauthorized migrants and residents who have committed crimes. I would expect that focus to continue all right, that is it for your questions answered. I'm going to send it back to John for the rest of the pod and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Have a good one. Peace.
- [26:33]
John
Thanks, Isaac. Here's your under the radar story for today folks. Last week, Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa, proposed legislation that would require federal agencies to move 30% of their Washington, D.C. based workers out of the region within one year of the bill becoming law. The law would apply to all federal agencies except those dealing with national security, and employees who are relocated would not be eligible for remote work. Ernst also proposed a second bill that would require agencies to closely monitor employees computer activity while they are working remotely. While roughly 85% of the federal workforce already lives and works outside of the D.C. area, Ernst says her bill aims to target waste and abuse in federal agencies. Government Executive has this story and there's a link in today's episode Description all right, next up is our numbers section. The approximate percentage of the world's fresh water contained in Greenland's ice sheet is 7%. The approximate percentage of Greenland that is not covered by ice and snow is 20%. The approximate percentage of Greenlanders who voted in favor of self governance in the 2008 non binding referendum is 76%. The amount in gold that the Truman administration offered Denmark to purchase Greenland in 1946 is $100 million. The number of minerals deemed critical raw materials by the European Commission found in Greenland is 25 out of 34, according to a 2023 survey. The estimated value of Greenland's rare earth mineral deposits is 500 to 700 billion, according to a 2019 report by Alphaville. The estimated value of Greenland's other natural resources is 300 to 400 billion, and the estimated range in the cost to purchase Greenland is 12.5 to $77 billion, according to a recent estimate by economist David Barker. And last but not least, our have a nice day story. The invasive species water hyacinth has been taking over Lake Naivasha in Kenya, leaving the water unnavigable and killing many of the lake's fish. It's not just Lake Naivasha that faces problems due to water hyacinth and issues caused by the plant cost the global economy $700 million annually. Joseph Nguthiru wanted to do something about it. He founded a company, Hypack Ecotech Ltd. That uses the pesky plant to create a biodegradable form of plastic. In one use case, seedling bags made from the bioplastic can be used to plant new trees. Ngutheru says it's a win, win situation for all involved. CNN has this story and there's a link in today's episode description. All right everybody, that is it for today's episode. As always, if you'd like to support our work, Please go to readtangle.com and sign up for a membership. You can also go to tanglemedia.supercast.com and sign up for a premium podcast membership, which gets you ad, free daily podcast, Friday editions, Sunday editions, interviews, bonus content and much more. We'll be right back here tomorrow. For Isaac and the rest of the crew, this is John Mull signing off. Have a great day, y'all. Peace.
- [29:52]
Isaac Saul
Our podcast is written by me, Isaac Saul, and edited and engineered by John Wall. The script is edited by our managing editor, Ari Weitzman, Will K. Bailey, Saul and Sean Brady. The logo for our podcast was designed by Magdalena Bova, who is also our social media manager. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet75. And if you're looking for more from Tangle, Please go to readtangle.com and check out our website.