John (8:22)
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.
