National territory has a psychological and strategic value that cannot be bought and sold. Countries have gone to war over infinitesimally tiny pieces of land (Gaza, Falklands, Northern Ireland)... we do not need to look to a crystal ball to see why Denmark holds onto a gigantic landmass like Greenland.
Landmass is sometimes valued much lower than we might expect. In the eighteen century, France perceived Guadeloupe (an island in the carribean) as more valuable than Canada [1] and chose to keep the former over the later. Voltaire is often quoted to have dismissed Canada as
"Quelques arpents de neige" (a few acres of snow).
Granted, France lost a war and had limited saying in what to keep, but the difference in perceived value is interesting.
I'd honestly agree with that assessment given the situation at the time. Canada is more valuable than Guadeloupe in a vacuum, sure, but in the context of geographic and naval concerns Guadeloupe was likely more of a net positive to France. The primary output of sugar was much more economically important, and the relative size just adds defense costs for Canada. Also, while the main port in Guadeloupe is relatively unsheltered and poor, it is well-situated strategically in the Carribean against their main rivals (English and Dutch).
Denmark did sell the Virgin islands to the US in 1917, so it's not unheard of.
I think that back in the day, Denmark was keen to have a US base on Danish soil, hehe :)
(Also selling land and citizens probably became tabu, as is today)
I would suspect that later it became the reminder of former glory...
But in future, we'll likely have to give it up, if it ever becomes profitable on it's own.
(Unless, Greenland somehow becomes profitable by using it's ties to Denmark, for trade, etc..)
Agreed. Greenland is 836,300 mi², while Denmark is 16,577 mi². Imagine the effects of climate change in 200+ years - Greenland could be VERY valuable and important then.
Denmark itself is a pretty valuable strategic asset. What with controlling the seaways into the Baltic. If Greenland is valuable, then Denmark would likely be guaranteed to own it. In the same way, that Denmark has remained independent.
During the Second Schleswig War in 1864, the King of Denmark offered Otto von Bismarck thrice that Denmark - instead of relinquishing Schleswig - would join the German Confederation - which Bismarck would later turn into the German Empire.
All three times, Bismarck rejected the offer for two primary reasons: 1) He did not believe Danes would join a pan-German state and 2) (more importantly) the other great powers would have a big problem with Denmark being German.
In the same fashion, the fight over Greenland would lead to the compromise solution that Greenland remain none of the great/super powers. The US would never accept it falling into Russian hands, but they could accept Denmark keeping it.
That works against non-NATO countries. If the US decided to turn its military basing agreements into ownership, there's not much anyone could really do to stop them. (If I had to do it, I'd follow the general pattern of greatly expanding those bases and the surrounding communities and eventually holding a referendum on whether the island should remain Danish or join the US - a referendum in which all the island's residents could vote, including US military)
Why would the US do this? They are the incumbents and there's no advantage (and possibly only disadvantage) to owning this territory.
My personal view is that the current geographical extent of the United States is static; there is no political will to change this - and why would you, when you can get all the benefits without the problems?
> there's not much anyone could really do to stop them
I would suggest that significant % of the remaining 28 members of NATO (including the nuclear armed Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey) would come up with a few ideas.
How about American citizens consider removing their heinously destabilising military bases from other sovereign states, and instead using those resources to make the lives of their own citizens better?
The world is tired of the USA bully thug politics involved in its placement of military bases around the world, and the arrogance of those who support these imperialist actions is very telling. These bases are not making the world more stable - they are, however, making the 1% of America's lifted military-industrial-pharmaceutical classes more wealthy.
In what way. The way I see it if America pulls back, the alternative is either China picking up the mantle of a superpower and enforcing its world view ... or anarchy where local despots enforce a regional order as they see fit. Did you ever wonder why there was/is a proliferation of democracies and the lack of regional wars between local despots?
I'm genuinely curious what you imagine would replace the present American world order.
>I'm genuinely curious what you imagine would replace the present American world order.
The present American world order requires: a) utter ignorance of its war crimes by its people, b) endless debt to pay for war and war machines, c) invalidation of sovereignty of foreign nations according to American political expediency, d) the pretence of a society governed by systems of democracy while factually being run by a cabal of oligarchs, e) more spent on war per week than on health care for its citizens per year, f) the continued degradation of cultures deemed inferior by the ruling cabal.
I'd be happier if the major world power was actually democratic and used its powers to increase peoples health and well-being rather than the wholesale destruction of, and mass interference with, states not towing the American line ..
You're very good at pointing all the things that you hate about America and you're very good at wishing for an Utopia. Guess what! So is everyone else. Every human is a little arm-chair general about everything. What's hard is building something in a complex, gray world.
So I ask again, what do you think will ACTUALLY happen if America collapses or pulls back to only concern itself with what happens within its border?
Exactly. The counter factual to the world order that prevails now is not utopia. It is hegemony by some other superpower. The current candidate is China, a country ruled by a government that doesn’t even pretend to care about liberal values.
Please let me know when China has demolished a sovereign state, at the same order of magnitude as America has in the last 20 years.
China isn't great, and has its low scores in many ways, but America is far, far worse in terms of its sheer destruction of sovereign states.
Just because the iron fist is wrapped in a velvet glove doesn't make it any better for those being smashed in the face by it, and there is a huge, huge pile of dead bodies behind the American smashing...
A counterfactual is something that has not happened, but could reasonably. The question is not what China has done, since China has not been a world superpower, but how they are likely to behave once they are a superpower. When you argue against the U.S., you have to compare it against what is likely to happen, not what you would like to happen. I think Russia, the last superpower, is probably a good example of how China will behave. And there the comparison makes the U.S. look somewhere between ambiguous to relatively benevolent, depending on how you weigh various wars and geopolitical maneuverings.
My point is that the common thread throughout history is that world super powers have been incredibly brutal. The sun never sets on the British empire, as they say. For all of its faults, and there are many, America has been a relatively benign superpower.
>My point is that the common thread throughout history is that world super powers have been incredibly brutal.
Huh??? That's the opposite of what happened. Ages with empires are characterized by peace, trade, and cultural and scientific development. War was the default state in the interim time between empires.
And yes, the American empire (if you want to call it that), has been the most prosperous and benign in history.
Illegal? To have something be illegal, means there are a set of laws and a body to enforce them. There is no supernational government. There is the UN, a loose confederation of nations to provide a platform to discuss and solve issues on a volunteer basis. This is why it tolerates the existence of authoritarian and autocratic governments as members and why powerful nations even bother with it at all.
Maybe you wish there was a democratic global government, but that isn't the world we exist it and it will not be a world we live in any time soon.
Game of Thrones has a nice metaphor of "summer born", people like you and me who have been born in a time of peace and prosperity - an outlier period in human history - but who think this is the default state of the world.
//
One more point ... Do you disagree that the American 'Empire' has been the most prosperous and peaceful in human history? If so, which one was better?
American wars are illegal even by American law standards.
There is no declaration of war that makes what America is doing in Niger legal, by American legal standards. There certainly isn't any legal cover for America's illegal occupation of Syria. Not to mention, support for genocide in Yemen is absolutely illegal.
Its just that the people remain ignorant of this fact - and its politicians - choose not to enforce those laws for their own purposes (war profit, intolerance, hatred, etc.)
> Huh??? That's the opposite of what happened. Ages with empires are characterized by peace, trade, and cultural and scientific development. War was the default state in the interim time between empires.
I know. But peacetime can be brutal. As a superpower, America has not taken slaves, nor engaged in genocide, nor established colonies. In those ways it’s hegemony has been much less brutal than all the world superpowers who came before.
Why would it be unlikely? And invasion is too strong a word. Nations could simply ignore Denmark, the way they ignore Canada's claims to the Northwest Passage. Like Canada, Denmark is too weak and inconsequential to do anything about it.
Because it is water, not land. The Nato partners consider it international water and does not accept Canadas claims. I don't think Nato would go to war to prevent anybody sailing past Greenland in international waters either.
> The Nato partners consider it international water and does not accept Canadas claims
Or to out it another way, NATO partners don't respect Canada's sovereignty claims because the Northwest Passage is too valuable and Canada can't enforce its claim. Contrast that to Taiwan, a nation that should be independent, (and is not 'international waters') but no major country is willing to recognize it as such.
Greenland would be the same way.
And by the way, Alaska and Louisiana purchases were executed because Russia and France respectively knew they were never going to be able to hold those territories and ceded it for cash.
It is straightforward though: NATO is an organization for collective defense. The set of territories covered is well-defined, but does not include all territories claimed by each individual member states. For example Hawaii is not included, nor is the Falkland Islands, which is why NATO was not invoked in the Falklands War. But Greenland is included.
A response to an attack is decided on by the NATO council, not by the individual member states. So unless NATO is dissolved (which could of course happen one day but which is certainly not in the cards currently), Greenland is defended by the NATO alliance.
Taiwan is of course not a member of NATO so that example is irrelevant.
Buying and selling of large territories between countries has been very common throughout history, so a blanket statement like this doesn't hold much weight. Much of the United States was bought rather than conquered, and China is doing the same today.
While there aren't any borders officially being redrawn, China is rapidly buying exclusive rights to territorial waters, ports and agricultural land from countries across SE Asia, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Australia, Africa, Argentina and more, where they operate semi-autonomously.
Yes, if the people identify as Danish you can’t just change the flag and expect them to be Americans. When I went to the Falklands it was very clear that it didn’t matter how badly Argentina wanted the islands. Even if Argentina managed to conquer the islands militarily the islanders had decided they were British and that was that.
Expected by who? The original comment I replied to said that Danes offered no resistance to Nazi occupation, as if that were to be expected without stating why.
Maybe you're mixing that up with Poland? Nazi rule in Denmark was popular and internment camps there we're similar to US ones of Japanese, Italians and Germans, and similarly in the US there was no resistance either.
