Trump Won’t Rule Out Military Taking Greenland, Panama Canal
Trump Won’t Rule Out Military Taking Greenland, Panama Canal
President-elect Donald Trump declined to rule out using military or economic coercion as he detailed plans to seek greater US influence over Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal during a press conference Tuesday.
Paywall? https://archive.is/4q9nl
You're viewing a single thread.
The EU has a harder defense Clause than the NATO. The Member States must do everything possible to Support the attacked state
Greenland isn't part of the EU though.
I think Greenland is part of Denmark, which is a member state
Yes, but Greenland explicitly exited the EU when they became an autonomous region.
That doesn't mean that they're not Danish territory, and Denmark is a member state, and the defence clause gets activated when the territory of a member state is under attack.
Differently put: The only reason that Argentinia didn't find itself at war with the whole of the EU was because the defence clause wasn't yet law during the Falklands war. NATO's clause only applies on the northern hemisphere if I'm recalling it right, there's definitely a geographical limit.
Isn't Denmark responsible for Greenlandic defense and foreign policy, though?
Something like that yes, but I doubt this extends to Greenland being included in other EU defense treaties.
The mood seems to have shifted though. About 60% would vote to join the EU today.
Edit: The poll can be downloaded here. https://www.kas.de/en/web/nordische/single-title/-/content/the-second-foreign-and-security-policy-opinion-poll-in-greenland
It'd be even more if we ever got around to reforming the Common Fisheries Policy to make sense. Same goes for Iceland and the Faroer.
Not really familiar with the CFP on that level. In what way doesn't it make sense?
If Austria wants to fish in Danish waters, they can do so, freely. If Denmark wants to fell Austrian trees or mine Austrian mountains, they can't.
Then, aside from that, the quotas are insane: We're constantly scraping the bottom of the barrel, barely preventing fish from dying out. Allowing stocks to recover even a bit would allow us to pull more out of the waters while simultaneously having the stocks recover even more and increase quotas again until fish again are the abundant resource they once were before literal centuries of overfishing. Would take a couple of years, maybe a handful, of reduced quotas to a complete moratorium, depending on area and species. It's a thing we can absolutely afford to do: Some reduction in consumption, some increase in imports, some money spent on mothballing ships and people's jobs for a while, gigantic payoff.