Our President’s letter to the Prime Minister of Norway:

“Dear Jonas:

“Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT”

Observations, as I consider heading for the nearest bridge…

1. Basic writing structure practice dictates that in a formal letter, legal brief, or any other argument, the first item should be the most important one and the most persuasive. The strongest reason for Norway supporting the U.S. desire to get gain control of Greenland is because of something that nation didn’t do, and that would have had no substantive effect even if it had?

2. Norway doesn’t award the Nobel Peace Prize anyway.

3. ‘I did not get the Nobel Peace Prize from an organization based in your country, ergo it follows that I will no longer think purely of peace.” What? A. Obviously the President doesn’t think “purely of Peace”; he has lots of other things to think about, and I don’t even want to speculate on what some of them are…” B. Thus he is threatening not to do what he hasn’t been doing anyway, to someone he has no stated intention of thinking non-peacefully about, unless he wants to invade Norway. C. Is he pretending to be obsessed with getting a Nobel Peace Prize just to troll the people who say he is, or is her really obsessed with getting the Nobel Peace Prize? Which would be more ridiculous?

4. Greenland became a Danish colonial possession in 1721, so “we,” as in the USA, could not possibly have claimed it with our “boats” since “we” didn’t exist as a sovereign nation when the island became a property of Denmark.

5. Legally, when the United States bought the Danish West-Indies in 1917, now the U.S. Virgin Islands, “we” recognized Danish sovereignty over Greenland as part of this transaction. This was reaffirmed by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the 1933 verdict in the case concerning the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland. The President of the United States really should check out our treaties and documents before making illogical arguments off the top of his head.

6. What “paper” does the United States have proving its “ownership” of, say, Pennsylvania?

7. On what basis does Trump claim to have done more for NATO “than any other person since its founding”? Is this just his usual hyperbole, as everything is the “best,” the “greatest” and the “most” something? This claim is genuinely mysterious. What’s he talking about? Does he even know?

8. Okay, NATO should “do something” for the United States. Send him a nice fruit and cheese basket. That’s something.

9. What must another head of state think when he receives a letter like this that reads like it was composed by a ten-tear-old, never proof-read, and reflects the diplomatic subtlety of a punch in the mouth? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a better example of an official letter that warranted the old gag, “Dear X: Some idiot is sending out letters like this and signing your name.

10. “The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland” might be the truest statement in the letter, but why would anyone feel secure knowing that someone capable of writing a letter like this is control of anything, including sharp objects?

John Hinderacker, who writes the serious, and seriously concervative, generally pro-Trump blog Powerline, writes there in part (with disgust),

Greenland is a frozen wasteland, and mining there–like everything else–would be extremely challenging. The day could come when it makes sense to undertake the project of trying to mine in Greenland, but it would be far easier and cheaper to overcome Democratic resistance and mine here in the U.S. And again, both Denmark and Greenland would be delighted if American companies wanted to invest billions in mining in Greenland. The last thing we need to do to facilitate mining is invade the country.

Thus there is no need to acquire Greenland, but if we wanted to do so, we could. Greenland is virtually uninhabited. It would be easy for us to buy the loyalty of the 50,000 or so Greenlanders, and persuade them to become a U.S. territory. But Trump’s threats of invasion have made the issue one of sovereignty and patriotism. That was frankly stupid, since there was never any possibility that the U.S. would invade Greenland. Suggesting such a thing was a foolish unforced error.

Now Trump has compounded his mistake by imposing tariffs not just on Denmark, but on other European countries, “until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” As a result, Western Europe is rallying behind Denmark in opposing a U.S. takeover…The tariffs are another unforced error. Without having made any serious effort to expand our military presence in Greenland, let alone to buy it, Trump, through his pointless threats, has confirmed the caricature of him that prevails in most of Europe. He has thus turned what could have been a relatively painless (if unnecessary) transaction into an international fiasco…

I believe the tariffs Trump has just imposed on European countries are adopted pursuant to the “emergency” power that is now under review by the Supreme Court. While technically immaterial, the fact that Trump has used that alleged power in a patently irresponsible way could sway some justices in the direction of holding that he doesn’t have it.

The bottom line is that Trump has turned a significant but manageable geopolitical issue into a morass. He needs to extricate himself, and the simplest way to do so is to 1) stop talking publicly, and 2) lay out to Denmark and Greenland the military steps that he wants to take, to which they will certainly acquiesce.

Bingo.

________________

The Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs has an excellent article on the U.S. claims to Greenland, titled Trump, Territory, and Greenland: Mixed Claims for Ownership, Rights, and Control. I recommend it highly. Someone needs to read it to President Trump. Soon.