Who is the one being undiplomatic?
So it is the duty of the Prime Minister to be the "top diplomant" but not the President?
When you put forward absurd ideas and demands it is better you are told that they are absurd. If you have the kind of personality who cannot handle this kind of direct talk, better not put forward absurd ideas in the first place. Ask around. Use the diplomatic channels. Be your country's "top diplomat".
Robert - You are asking me questions I cannot answer. Furthermore, they are perfectly reasonable questions that most likely would be taken up at the negotiating table. My point was that the role of a top diplomat such as the Prime Minister is to keep the waters calm; see to it that disagreements are discussed at the negotiating table. This Prime Minister fanned the flames, encouraged discord and impolitic comments about a U.S. President. It is just possible that since people thought Trump "mad" "absurd" or many other things, the U.S. Secret Service thought maybe his safety couldn't be guaranteed in that atmosphere. I doubt he cancelled over the Greenland thing, because nothing ever was discussed seriously. Trump just said he was interested. It's possible the Greenland thing wasn't even on the agenda. The Danish PM must have thought not, because she dismissed it. A strange way to handle diplomacy, if you ask me. By the way, why would the U.S. find it odd that someone would want to buy Hawaii, Alaska or California? That's how countries do business. Countries are always are trying to expand borders or come up with new treaties that are beneficial to both parties. Of course they can come to the table with their offers. It's up to the U.S. to politely decline. It certainly wouldn't offend me if offers were made. In fact, I could come up with a couple of our states that I would put up "For Sale" sign.
But it was absurd to suggest that Denmark could sell Greenland to the USA. Greenland is not a piece of property. What do you think that the Greenlanders would say if their land was sold?
There have been talks about Greenland becoming a completely sovereign state, even if it's not on the agenda right now. Let's, for the sake of argument, say that Denmark indeed sold Greenland to the USA, and a year later a referendum is held on Greenland, where a majority calls for independence. What would the USA do then? Neglect what the people want? Or, to make it even more interesting, what if they have a referendum where the people vote for regaining Greenland's status as a autonom land within the Danish realm. Would the USA neglect their wish? Or maybe order the entire population of Greenland to move to a reservation in Alaska?
If Japan ask if they can buy Hawaii, don't you think that American leaders would find the proposal absurd?
And that is precisely why Trump decided to cancel. He knows he is not wanted, so why bother? The American public has already started to weigh in on the controversy, saying they think Trump had no business wasting the taxpayers' money on such a visit in the first place. But the blame for this fiasco, in my view, falls squarely on the shoulders of the Danish PM when she insulted the U.S. President by calling his proposal "absurd, " as though the idea of buying land, territories among countries is unheard of. This faux outrage was a PR stunt designed to placate people who didn't want Trump to visit in the first place. Surely this PM knew that Trump's offer was not an outlyer as she wants people to believe. The U.S. tried to buy Greenland in 1946 and Eisenhower had his eyes on it also And the world community surely knows the U.S. has an interest because of its air force base there as well as space stations and its early warning system to detect incoming missiles. Surely she is aware at many gatherings of world leaders, Greenland is a hot topic. (See YouTube U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's latest speech on the Arctic region.) The world knows China and Russia has designs on Greenland. She must know that if the ice melts, there could be massive reserves of oil there. This would open up shipping lanes. So the idea of another country buying it, should not have come as a surprise. And offers should be expected and on the table when world leaders meet. Denmark in the past has been open to selling territories which it did in 1917 when they sold what is now known as the Virgin Islands to the United States. And the U.S. granted citizenship to the inhabitants of that land. All this has been discussed and done before. Trump saw what the PM was doing - trying to make him out to be some sort of nut job for even thinking about it. Greenland is of interest to the U.S. for many reasons. I think Trump was furious at her for dismissing it out of hand as the random musings of a reckless President,.She should have used some diplomatic language such as "we will have many topics of discussion on the agenda." The visit would have proceeded as planned. What was she to gain by calling it "absurd."
So as I see it, it's a win-win all around. Denmark doesn't have to stomach a Trump visit and Trump has exposed the hypocrisy of people who think it's okay for other countries to buy/sell territories, but when he suggests it everyone gets the vapors.
I am posting an article from The Atlantic that some may find useful. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/trump-wants-buy-greenland-apparently/596263/
This is so embarrassing, at least HM has been sparred the indignity of having to meet and entertain him.
Message Thread | This response ↓|