0

PETER YOUNG: Trump making headlines before assuming office

By PETER YOUNG

The world’s media has been overloaded recently with stories that people are making fun of some of President-elect Trump’s latest pronouncements in advance of his inauguration next week. These vary from renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America and making Canada the 51st American state to taking over the Panama Canal and to acquiring Greenland.

Today I want to write about Greenland because, according to all reports, it matters to the US principally for security reasons. Trump has shown renewed interest in obtaining the territory and last week publicly refused to rule out economic - including heavy tariffs - and military force to achieve this. So, if he perseveres, perhaps with the example of Alaska, which the US purchased from Russia in 1867, foremost in his mind, this could develop into a major issue and it might be interesting to examine it in more detail.

Some believe that, while the US taking over Greenland seems a particularly outlandish idea, both the Danes and Greenlanders feel threated by Trump’s recent public remarks about it. They fear that American acquisition should never be ruled out while he is in office, even though it appears unlikely at this early stage, since Greenland is already an autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The country has its own parliament established in 1979 and, as has been made clear by both Denmark and the Greenlanders themselves, it is not for sale.

Greenland is the world’s largest island, geographically part of North America but geopolitically part of Europe and Denmark. It has wide-ranging autonomy except for foreign and defence matters and management of its economy. It is sparsely populated with some 56,000 living in a territory about eighty per cent of which is covered by ice. It receives large subsidies from Denmark and its economy is based on fishing. Apparently, with global warming and melting of ice taking place, mining is becoming more accessible so there is also growing interest in the territory’s natural resources including uranium and copper.

The history books show that the Kingdom of Denmark has controlled Greenland for hundreds of years. In 1953, the territory was formally made part of Denmark and Greenlanders became Danish citizens. The US took over the territory during the Second World War and established permanent military bases there, including troops, which it still maintains. A defence agreement with Denmark in 1951 seems basically to have given the Americans whatever they wanted to the extent that some say they already have de facto control.

It should be noted that the President-elect’s pronouncement about Greenland has a recent history to it. He tried “to buy” Greenland in 2019 during his first presidency but was generally ridiculed for the idea, with some people doubting whether it was meant to be serious. At that time, he was told by the prime minister of Denmark that it was an “absurd” idea and anyway the island of Greenland was not for sale. After being rebuffed, he backed off and did not pursue the matter further.

Fast forward to the present when Denmark and a number of other European nations have stressed that Greenland’s territorial integrity must be preserved. The German Chancellor has reminded everybody that the principle of inviolability of borders applies universally and the French foreign minister has said the European Union would not let other nations attack existing sovereign borders. But Denmark has played down any suggestion of the US employing military force. Denmark’s prime minister is quoted as saying “it will surely never get to that”.

She has stated that the US continues to be Denmark’s closest ally and partner and it would be unthinkable for two NATO allies to confront each other over an issue of this sort. It was essential anyway, she said, to take into account the “independence aspirations” of the local people.

She has also declared unequivocally that any decision about Greenland’s future is a matter for its people alone to make. As she has said, Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders and it is they themselves who have to define their future - and they wait to see with some trepidation whether reality will match the Trump rhetoric.

Doubtless they would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when Donald Trump Jr reported back to his father after his very brief visit last week to the capital Nuuk. They have made clear that they do not want to be Danish or American but, rather, be themselves and determine their own future while recognising they need economic support in order to survive and prosper in the long-term. Reportedly, some of them will have welcomed the Trump intervention because it has put their country in the spotlight. But, if necessary, they want to talk directly to the Americans and not via Denmark.

There are also other dimensions to this issue like treatment of the native Inuits (earlier known as Eskimos though this term is now not commonly used) and moves towards independence that already exist. But, for the moment, although Trump’s public remarks have stirred up controversy, it remains to be seen, of course, whether he will follow them up with action when in office.

In this context and with Trump talking about the beginning of an American “Golden Age”, it will be fascinating to see the nature of US foreign policy that broadly emerges during the coming new presidency. Some historians are writing about the alternative of isolationism or neo-conservative interventionism and also speculating about an identifiably different MAGA foreign policy. But more of that, perhaps, another time.

Growth of a new political force in Britain

IN last week’s column I wrote about the political troubles of British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and the reasons for his government’s lack of popularity so soon after his overwhelming victory in last July’s general election. I mentioned the challenge presented by the new Reform UK political party which is a right-wing populist party that has set its sights on overtaking the Conservatives and challenging Labour at the 2029 election as voters’ anger grows in reaction to Starmer’s extreme socialist policies.

With a manifesto described as radical and “outside the box”, Reform offers commonsense policies on issues like immigration, climate change, the cost of living and energy. It seeks to attract voters from both the left and right of politics who are frustrated by the two main parties. Reform supports a hardline stance on illegal immigration by stopping the small boats crossing the English Channel and by taking the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights which unscrupulous lawyers use to prevent deportation of illegals. Reform also wants to shrink the size of the state, lower the tax burden on companies and on individuals by raising thresholds, reduce government spending, scrap net zero targets and green levies, and fast track oil and gas licences for North Sea oil and gas.

All this sounds uncannily like what Donald Trump is preaching in the US, so it comes as no real surprise that the party is now led by his friend Nigel Farage, who is known in Britain as a skilled, experienced and effective politician, regarded by some as the champion of Brexit. He served for many years as a Member of the European Parliament and is now one of Reform’s five MPs at Westminster who are said to be shaking up British politics, with some people talking about a political earthquake.

During the disarray amongst the Tories in 2018 over Britain’s continued membership of the European Union, the Brexit party was launched. But, after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, it morphed into Reform UK. Meanwhile, the Tories went into self-destruct mode as they did not apply proper Tory values and policies to the practice of governance. Despite his thumping victory in the 2019 general election, Boris Johnson was forced by his own side to resign as Conservative prime minister in 2022 after “partygate” and other Tory scandals. His successor lasted for all of forty-nine disastrous days with unrealistic radical economic policies and the Conservative Party was plunged into turmoil. Rishi Sunak steadied the ship during his brief tenure as PM. But the damage was done and many people considered that the Tories lost the July 2024 election - rather than Labour winning it because of massive support of the electorate - as voters wanted a change after 14 years of Tory rule. Nigel Farage then stepped up as leader of the new party.

Reform UK is now only a few points behind Labour and the Conservatives nationally. Farage is beating Starmer in the polls as the more popular choice as prime minister. He has a huge following on social media – much greater than Starmer – through which more and more voters now receive their news and information. The party’s rise has been remarkable and seems to be having an impact around the UK with branch offices springing up since the July election as the party’s membership has sky rocketed. All this has created considerable concern amongst Conservatives who are calling the phenomenon a “wake-up call” as Reform now has plans to “laser focus” on the local elections due in May.

The good news for Nigel Farage and his colleagues is that their party has overtaken the Liberal Democrats as the third largest in the country. Following last year’s election, Reform UK was the third largest party by popular vote with over four million votes or over 14 percent of the vote in total – in all the circumstances a political earthquake, indeed. But the Conservative Party is now under new leadership and it remains to be soon how its fortunes may be turned around after such a heavy defeat in July.

State funeral for former president

TO be able to watch live the TV coverage of the state funeral of the 39th US President, Jimmy Carter, at the National Cathedral in Washington last week was a sad but, at the same time, uplifting experience.

It was a grand ceremonial occasion to recognize a life of service devoted to improving people’s lives. The eulogies and tributes paid to him were all of high quality, not least President Biden’s emphasis in his own address about the importance of his old friend’s impressive strength of character which had contributed so much to his fine legacy as a humanitarian and a statesman. At the end of the service, it struck me that the whole event – so well organised and efficiently run - must have seemed to many a demonstration of America at its very best.

The state funeral was attended by all five living presidents and it was inevitable, I suppose, that people would be interested in the interaction between them gathered together for such an important occasion.

But, at the risk of introducing a jarring note, I wonder whether some felt that the media laid too much emphasis on this interaction, even to the extent of getting a lip reader to figure out what Obama and Trump were talking about when they were filmed in a lively conversation while seated alongside each other. It also seemed unnecessary to put so much stress on, for example, Mike Pence’s wife apparently refusing to greet Trump and on claiming that a stony-faced Kamala Harris was reluctant to greet the others in a normally polite manner.

Watching all this unfold, it seemed to me that the media exaggerated some of these actions and attributed too much significance to the spontaneous behaviour of those concerned. The commentators were, to my eye, overly obtrusive in concentrating on this – and it was inappropriate on such a formal and solemn occasion of which Americans were surely justifiably proud.

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment