However,
such military action would be manifestly contrary to the criteria of
traditional just war theory. And even if
the threat is intended merely as a negotiating tactic (as is likely), it would
be contrary to the natural law principles governing international
relations. These facts should be obvious
to all, and would have been until recently.
But Trump’s most ardent supporters have an alarming tendency reflexively
to defend even the most outrageous things he does, cobbling together feeble rationalizations
for words and actions they would condemn had they come from anyone else. It is worthwhile, then, to set out the
reasons why Trump’s statements regarding Greenland are indefensible.
Greenland annexation and just war
criteria
Again, military
action to annex Greenland would clearly be unjust. For it manifestly would not meet the “just
cause” criterion of just war theory. One
country can justly make war on another only when the other country is guilty of
some rights violation grave enough for war to be a proportionate response. The most obvious example would be when a
country goes to war in order to repel an aggressor. But neither Denmark nor Greenland is guilty
of aggressing against the United States, or of any other violation of U.S.
rights. Indeed, they are longtime allies
of the U.S.
The fact
that the United States would find Greenland’s location and resources useful for
purposes of defense is irrelevant. If I
would find it useful to take over my neighbor’s property in order to protect my
own against robbers, that hardly gives me a right to do so. Indeed, it would make me a robber. Nor will it do
to pretend that governments are somehow not bound by the same moral prohibition
against robbery that binds individuals.
As St. Thomas Aquinas writes:
As regards princes, the public power is entrusted to them
that they may be the guardians of justice: hence it is unlawful for them to use
violence or coercion, save within the bounds of justice... To take other
people's property violently and against justice, in the exercise of public authority,
is to act unlawfully and to be guilty of robbery. (Summa Theologiae II-II.66.8)
The
injustice of wars of territorial expansion is not a matter of controversy among
natural law theorists in the Thomistic tradition, but has long been the
standard position. For example, Thomas
Higgins’s Man as Man: The Science and Art
of Ethics says that “war of aggression is the violent endeavor to deprive
another people of independence, territory, or the like, for the sake of
increasing one’s own power and prestige… The Natural Law forbids all wars of
aggression” (p. 543). Austin Fagothey’s Right and Reason notes that “territorial
aggrandizement, glory and renown, envy of a neighbor’s possessions,
apprehension of a growing rival, maintenance of the balance of power… these and
the like are invalid reasons” for going to war (p. 564). Fagothey also notes that though it can under
certain circumstances be licit for a country to acquire new land, this would
not be true of “land… recognized as the territory of an existing state,” and
that “an existing state may not be deprived of its territory” (p. 547).
The seriousness
of these points cannot be overstated. The
problem is not just that the forced annexation of Greenland would amount to robbery
on a massive scale. It is that, because
it would result in deaths, such an unjust military action would be tantamount
to murder. It would make the president a
war criminal. It would be a massive
injustice not only against the people of Greenland, but also against the
American military, which Trump would be making an instrument of such
criminality.
A negotiating tactic?
Many of
Trump’s defenders would say that he isn’t serious about resorting to military
force, but merely intends such rhetoric as a negotiating tactic. It is no doubt true that he intends it that
way. It is also likely true that, at the
end of the day, he would refrain from using such force, if only because the
political costs would be too great.
It is
significant, though, that in Trump’s most recent remarks, he seemed to draw a
distinction between the situation with Greenland and the situation with Canada,
which he has repeatedly said also ought to become part of the United
States. Asked about the possibility of
using military force to acquire Canada, Trump said: “Well, I think we're not going
to ever get to that point” and “I don’t see it with Canada, I just don’t see
it.” That is hardly an acknowledgement
that acquiring Canada in such a way would be wrong, and thus to be ruled out absolutely. It sounds more like a judgment to the effect
that attacking Canada would merely be unnecessary or impractical. But his answer in the case of Greenland is
different. Again, he said that “it could
happen, something could happen with Greenland” and “I don’t rule it out,” even
if he also says that that too is unlikely.
Overall, his remarks give the impression that he does indeed regard
military action against Greenland as at least remotely possible. There is also the fact that the
administration has
now stepped up intelligence operations vis-à-vis Greenland.
In any
event, even if this rhetoric is meant as a negotiating tactic, it is still
gravely immoral. There are at least two
ways that the refusal to rule out military action could function as a
negotiating tactic. Trump might
genuinely intend to keep the option open
in order to frighten Denmark and Greenland into making a deal, even if he does
not currently have any plan actually to resort to such action. Or he might merely be bluffing in order to frighten them into making a deal, but would
not ever really carry out such action.
Either of these tactics would be gravely wrong, though not in the same
way.
John Finnis,
Joseph Boyle, and Germain Grisez discuss the difference between genuinely
keeping an option open and merely bluffing in their book Nuclear Deterrence, Morality, and Realism,
and some of the points they make are relevant to the present topic.
Consider the
first possibility, that Trump intends to keep open the option of taking
military action against Greenland, but also hopes and believes that he will
never have to carry this threat out. As
Finnis, Boyle, and Grisez point out, it is a fallacy to suppose that if someone
hopes and believes he never has to carry out a threat to do some action, then
it follows that he does not really intend that action. The reality is rather that “people who
fortunately avoid what they only reluctantly intend, or who might have a change
of mind in the future, are people whose minds are now made up” (pp.
104-5). In the present case, if Trump
really does want to keep the option open, then he does in the relevant sense
have the intention of taking military action against Greenland if he cannot otherwise acquire it. That remains the case even if he also hopes
and believes he will be able to acquire it peacefully.
But as we
have seen, acquiring Greenland this way would violate just war criteria, and
thus amount to murder. As Finnis, Boyle,
and Grisez write of keeping open the option of carrying out a murderous act:
It would be doubly conditioned – conditional not only on an
adversary’s act in defiance of the threat, but on a choice still to be made to
execute it. None the less, that doubly
conditioned intention would still be a murderous will. If one intends now to be in a position to
commit murder, should one later decide that the situation warrants it, then
even now one is willing (however reluctantly) to murder. (p. 111)
So, keeping
open the option of taking military action against Greenland, even if intended
just as a negotiating tactic, is still tantamount to an intention to murder,
and is thus gravely immoral. Consider
then the alternative scenario, on which Trump is merely bluffing. On this hypothesis, Trump does not in fact intend even to keep the
military option open. He simply wants
Denmark and Greenland to think that
he is keeping it open. Even if this is
what is going on, it is still gravely immoral for at least three reasons, the
first two of which are set out by Finnis, Boyle, and Grisez.
First, when
a country threatens an immoral military action, it is not only the intentions
of its leaders that are morally relevant.
Also relevant are the intentions of everyone else in some way connected
to the action, from soldiers to ordinary citizens. In the present case, even if Trump himself is
bluffing, the bluff can only work if it is not obviously a bluff – that is to say, if a critical mass of people
think he really might carry out the threat.
And that will lead at least some people (government officials, military
personnel, and voters) to decide to support the action if he carries it
out. That is to say, they will form the
intention of supporting a murderous action.
They will not be bluffing,
even if Trump is. And as Finnis, Boyle,
and Grisez write: “Those who deliberately bring others to will what is evil
make themselves guilty, not only of the evil the others will, but also of
leading them to become persons of evil will” (p. 119). In the case at hand, such a leader “would be
inciting the others to intend to kill the innocent” (p. 120), even if he does
not himself really intend to do so.
Second, it
is not just what individuals do or will that is relevant. The military actions of a country are social acts, acts carried out by the
society as a whole (understood as what is traditionally called a kind of “corporate
person” or “moral person”).
As Finnis, Boyle, and Grisez note, a team
can rightly be said to intend to win a game, even if certain individual members of the team do not intend this
but would rather lose. Similarly, even
if a president is personally bluffing
when he makes a threat, it doesn’t follow that the communal act of the United States as a country, in
making the threat, amounts to a bluff.
The reason is that “the social act… is defined by its public proposal” rather than by what
this or that individual might privately think, “and that proposal is not a
proposal to bluff” (pp. 122-23, emphasis added).
Extorted contracts are immoral
The third
problem is this. Even if Trump is merely
bluffing, the point of the bluff would be to frighten Denmark and Greenland
into making an agreement they would not otherwise be willing to make. But this is sheer extortion and
gangsterism. Moral common sense and
traditional natural law theory alike hold that an agreement cannot be licit or
binding if made under such unjust duress.
As one standard manual of moral theology puts it:
The defects that vitiate consent by taking away knowledge or
choice render contracts either void or voidable. These impediments [include]… fear, which is a disturbance of mind
caused by the belief that some danger is impending on oneself or others… [and] violence or coercion, which is like to fear, the latter being moral force and
the former physical force. (John McHugh and Charles Callan, Moral Theology, Vol. II, pp. 140-41)
To be sure,
the reference here is to contracts between individuals, but natural law theorists
standardly hold that, mutatis mutandis,
what is true for agreements between individuals is true for treaties between
nations. As Fagothey writes, “the
conditions for a valid treaty are the same as those for any valid contract,” so
that “if an unjust aggressor is victorious, the treaty he imposes is unjust and
therefore invalid” (Right and Reason,
pp. 549-50). And as another natural law
theorist says, “a treaty made under duress, say, made under threat of war… can
hardly be regarded as binding, or at least should be regarded as rescindible,
if the conditions imposed are manifestly and flagrantly unjust” (Michael
Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol.
II, p. 658).
It is no defense of the president’s comments, then, to say that they are meant as a negotiating tactic rather than seriously evincing an intention to go to war. For a negotiating tactic of this kind is itself also gravely immoral.
Ed, as you so eloquently said about Trump, he is a bullshitter.
ReplyDeleteMmm, love me a good Feser piece on Just War. I don't always agree with all the details, but you can feel the moral integrity.
ReplyDeleteEd,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this rigorous and sobering analysis. I found your application of just war theory and natural law principles to this hypothetical illuminating.
I do have a small question regarding one point that gave me pause—specifically, the claim that government officials, military personnel, and voters would "form the intention of supporting a murderous action" if the president’s threat of annexation were carried out.
I certainly agree that, objectively speaking, the action would constitute grave injustice and even murder under traditional just war criteria. However, I wonder whether it necessarily follows that those who support the action would intend murder as such. Isn’t it possible—especially in an age of deep polarization and propaganda—that many would sincerely believe the action to be just or at least morally ambiguous, and support it under that mistaken belief?
In Thomistic terms, would their cooperation be more accurately described as material rather than formal? That is, while they would contribute to an unjust action, they might not will its injustice per se. I don't raise this to diminish the seriousness of the concern you raise—on the contrary, it may make the scenario even more alarming—but rather to clarify how the doctrine of intention and culpability applies in such cases.
I'd be very interested in your thoughts on this.
Jeff
"As Fagothey writes" -- wow, you don't have to call the guy slurs.
ReplyDeleteYou do know that's his name, right.
Deletehttps://tanbooks.com/authors/fr-austin-fagothey-sj?srsltid=AfmBOopbLVzum35kQzbPCHZ5EtRq0zwshU1116brktSAZuOZK_gpdduu
Thank you for your compelling article on Trump’s Greenland rhetoric. As a Canadian, I deeply appreciate your application of just war theory and natural law, which clarifies the moral peril of his statements and resonates with my concerns about his rhetoric toward Canada.
ReplyDeleteI was once a Trump supporter, drawn to his outsider stance before his election. But as his claims that Canada “rips off” the U.S. intensified, coupled with assertions that Canada isn’t a “real country,” I reluctantly came to see him as a threat to my nation’s sovereignty. I hoped for a softer tone, but it never came. Your analysis helped me articulate why this rhetoric is so troubling.
You argue that military action to annex Greenland violates the “just cause” criterion of just war theory, as neither Denmark nor Greenland has aggressed against the U.S. This applies equally to Canada, a longtime ally that poses no threat. Citing Aquinas, you note that such territorial aggression is robbery—and when lives are at stake, it’s akin to murder. Trump’s refusal to rule out force, even as a negotiating tactic, is, as you say, gravely immoral. It evokes a Mafia-style “protection” racket, where threats extort compliance. His claim that military force against Canada is merely impractical (“I don’t see it with Canada”) isn’t a moral rejection but a pragmatic one, leaving allies like Canada and Denmark distrustful.
Your analogy of a neighbor’s property not being seizable for one’s defense mirrors my view that Canada’s economic reliance on the U.S. doesn’t justify annexation. As you cite Fagothey, natural law forbids depriving a state of its territory for “territorial aggrandizement” or “envy of a neighbor’s possessions.” Trump’s rhetoric, like a bully’s, dismisses such principles.
This reminds me of Thucydides’ Melian Dialogue in The Peloponnesian War. The Athenians, asserting dominance, declare in Book V, Chapter 89:
“You know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
This might-makes-right ethos, damned by natural law and just war theory, echoes Trump’s approach. The Melians’ response in Book V, Chapter 90, pleads for justice:
“It is expedient… that you should not destroy what is our common protection, namely, the privilege of being allowed in danger to invoke what is fair and right.”
Yet, as you warn about coercive tactics, power often prevails. The Melians’ defiance led to their destruction in Book V, Chapter 116:
“The Athenians… put to death all the grown men whom they took, and sold the women and children for slaves, and colonized the island with their own people.”
While Trump’s rhetoric doesn’t portend such horrors, it carries a similar imperial arrogance, undermining the moral foundations of alliances. Is this the America we want—one that coerces friends like Greenland or Canada? Your article convincingly argues no, showing that even rhetorical threats, per Finnis, Boyle, and Grisez, incite evil and erode justice.
Thank you for defending these principles. Your work reminds us that leaders must uphold the same moral standards as individuals, whether targeting Greenland or Canada.
Have you explained somewhere why you are, or are not, in favor of unilateral nuclear disarmament by the United States?
ReplyDeleteI'm a big admirer of Trump (being an Irish citizen I can hardly be a supporter), but your argument here seems watertight. I don't have to like everything he does, and I don't like even the threat of foreign adventures.
ReplyDeleteThe key to this - as mentioned in the first link - is China. Trump is using the threats and bluffing about Canada/Greenland as a way to introduce uncertainty into the geopolitical situation. China is heavily involved in Canada and is almost certainly - considering their political sophistication - involved in Greenland. There is a good argument to be made that we are in a modern non-kinetic war with the CCP and this move by Trump is meant as psychological warfare against China (which struggles with the Western ability to improvise). The recent change in the official position on Covid signals that we may be moving in the direction of accusing the CCP of biowarfare.
ReplyDeleteIf we are already at war with China then the situation is completely different and requires a different analysis. Obviously neither side has declared war but that is irrelevant to the globalist world we live in where the very idea of war has changed.
As an aside, this is why DeSantis would have been unacceptable to anyone concerned with China. DeSantis is a product of the Bush apparatus in Florida - an apparatus which needed a new candidate after Jeb was humiliated. When the Tiananmen Square uprising happened, the Bush administration chose to maintain the relationship with the CCP rather than side with righteous.
"Obviously neither side has declared war but that is irrelevant to the globalist world we live in where the very idea of war has changed."
DeleteThis kind of thinking is irreconcilable with the point Dr. Feser is making here. The world changes, but what's right doesn't change.
Anyways, this is special pleading. The idea that the US is fighting a vague, undeclared global war with China is certainly convenient if you want a blank check to do basically anything that's seen to be in the "national interest" (a notoriously pliable concept), but it has nothing to do with the kind of Christian moral seriousness that Dr. Feser is advocating here.
"This kind of thinking is irreconcilable with the point Dr. Feser is making here. The world changes, but what's right doesn't change.
DeleteAnyways, this is special pleading. The idea that the US is fighting a vague, undeclared global war with China is certainly convenient if you want a blank check to do basically anything that's seen to be in the "national interest" (a notoriously pliable concept), but it has nothing to do with the kind of Christian moral seriousness that Dr. Feser is advocating here."
On the contrary, it has everything to do with this. Applying principles to a situation requires that the situation is laid out as fully as possible. Non-kinetic warfare is the future. Psychological warfare is now the primary means that it is waged. Why bomb a country when you can unplug them through cyber attacks, destabilize everything, and let them kill each other?
Just as an aside, the Korean War technically never ended. There was no peace treaty. The Korean War was a proxy war between the US, Russia, and China. That proxy war has been non-kinetic for 70 years but everyone knows that North and South Korea are the abyss of psychological warfare. To complicate matters, the US and some of Europe (i.e. NATO) are in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. North Korea, a Chinese proxy, put troops in Ukraine, a NATO proxy, so did North Korea/Russia/China break the Korean War armistice by getting involved with Ukraine/United States/NATO? Those Trump visits with Kim Jong Un were not the circus the media made them out to be.
The US is going to economic war with China in retaliation for their endlessly deceptive and manipulative behavior in regards to economics. China is routinely engaging in aggressive naval drills in the South China Sea, this amounts to psychological warfare in regards to Taiwan, which the United States has implied they will protect against China. China has become heavily involved in South America, Central America (the Panama Canal), and Canada. Fentanyl originates with them and is killing more Americans per year than the entire Vietnam War. The Trump administration is pursuing a hemispheric defense strategy to remove Chinese influence from the western hemisphere, that includes Greenland. If Trump's aggression against Greenland and Canada is a tactical use of psychological warfare against China to introduce instability into the geopolitical situation - instability being extremely disruptive to China because of the fear of the Western ability to improvise - then is it justified?
Keep in mind that China has Muslims in concentration camps; they are also persecuting Christians by subjecting them to suppression and, you guessed it, psychological warfare (for example, teaching in textbooks that Jesus stoned the woman caught in adultery). This ropes in the Vatican and the new pope as well since Francis made a secret deal with the CCP allowing them to be involved in appointing bishops.
This is a legitimate question or perhaps it also lacks "moral seriousness".
The notion that war in the 21st century is just so very different from the premodern world, what with “non-kinetic” warfare and psychological manipulation, that we have to throw out the Just War doctrine, is both hilarious and shows an appalling ignorance of history.
DeleteYes Anon, never before has any nation ever attempted to undermine another without directly going to war with it. Poor St. Thomas Aquinas just couldn’t have possibly have predicted that the deeply honourable world leaders of his time would ever engage in subterfuge.
When did I say that we should throw out Just War doctrine? If you are going to be condescending you should at least try to comprehend what you are replying to. Also, why put "non-kinetic" in quotation marks, do you think that is my own neologism? Are you really not aware that modern war, especially mental war, is qualitatively different than before modern technology?
DeleteFor instance, as far as I know, psychological warfare has never been considered a just cause for war. But now, the techniques are so sophisticated that they can do (and are doing) permanent psychological damage to civilians. Obviously you can't attack their civilians with the same so is a country justified in responding with physical force? Ever? How bad does it have to get? How about economic warfare? But economic warfare directly impacts civilians, so when can that a just response?
These are immediately relevant to the situation we are in with Trump's policy decisions and China. And I didn't even bring in the issue of fentanyl which, as I said, causes as many deaths per year as the entire Vietnam War but it is against civilians. And it directly involves Canada allowing it through the border, making them partially responsible for civilian deaths.
To Anonymous:
DeleteI find the idea that improvisation is a uniquely Western ability to be risible. Perhaps you meant instead that the West is uniquely good at improvisation? That would still seem dubious, and something in need of a long list of examples, as well as refutation of every possible counter-example from history.
Except I didn't say it is an ability that is unique to the West. It just is much more prevalent in the West and that is not a controversial statement.
DeleteYou have any evidence of that? Because that's a claim in need of some *strong* evidence. Not vibes, not a handful of cherry-picked examples, either. You're gonna make a super-wide, sweeping statement about the fundamental natures of civilisations, I'm going to make you do your homework for it. How deep is your knowledge of European history? Of Chinese history? Do you know of any potential counter-examples to your claims? Do you know how to refute those?
DeleteMy original post was about the poilitical situation and the CCP's concern about the US's adaptive ability. I can provide you military strategy source for that if you like. We do have one major conflict between the US and China in the Korean War and it played out just like that. China had their wave strategy where they attacked in mass numbers at night and had some success and the US adjusted and wrecked them. China had 4 or 5 times as many killed in action than the US and more than South Korea and the US combined. This would be the obvious source of the fear of the CCP leadership. The idea of obsessive planning is rooted in Sun Tzu who thought that if you do not beat the enemy without engaging in physical combat then you have already lost. The only time they faced America in a military conflict it went very poorly for them because the US quickly adapted.
DeleteAs for the generalisation, I think it is possible to make sweeping statements about cultures, of course you can't *prove* it but if that is the standard most observations about culture would be worthless. Obviously I don't think it is genetic, I think it is the Chinese respect for tradition and authority weaponized by communism that is crushing independent thought and innovation. This is the same observation that Roger Scruton got in trouble for: "(the CCP is) creating robots out of their own people by so constraining what can be done so each Chinese person is a kind of replica of the next one"
There's so much wrong with your comment that I don't know where to begin. I'll just focus on two points:
Delete1)You're basing your analysis of a 5000 year old culture's ability to adapt and wage war on ONE war from 75 years ago. The PLA now is radically different from what it was then. The most charitable word I can think of to describe this line of thinking is "moronic".
2) Your comment about Sun Tzu is confusingly written, and uses a double negative. At first I assumed you were accusing him of bloodthirstiness, but taken literally it seems you are claiming that he believed that victory must be achieved without physical combat (presumably because you think he was scared of fighting or something). Both interpretations show a complete failure to understand Sun Tzu. Listen, the single most famous quotation from the Art of War is this:
"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting."
Here, he is saying that war is extremely expensive and destructive, so it is best to get the enemy to surrender rather than waste lives and resources. That is all he is saying. Trying to read some kind of "obsessive planning fear of spontaneity" into this is nonsense.
I genuinely hope you're trolling, because if you're not, then you seriously need to learn more about other cultures. No culture is perfect, but the kind of easy-breezy dismissiveness you show is both stupid and arrogant. Never underestimate your opponent.
I never said that I was judging a 5,000 year old culture's ability to adapt based on the Korean War. Your replies are entirely constructed of straw. I made it clear in the last post that these are not my own observations but reflect those of others in regards to *communist* China. Per Roger Scruton, the CCP is putting the Chinese people into a fixed mold and they are locked into a certain way of thinking. As an aside, the same thing happened in the Soviet Union and it killed innovation - that is how a culture that produced cosmism turned into one that embraced Lysenkoism.
DeleteAs for the military, this relates to some of the main observations in the Rand Corporation's report 'Preparing for Great Power Conflict'. Instead of the U.S. model of direct combat experience, "the PLA gains experience through a structured process involving observation of wars and study of military science through a Marxist-Leninist lens, concept development, experimentation, demonstration, and implementation and training across the force." One of the conclusions being that "to date, the CCP and PLA have not been able to reconcile the need for greater innovation, creativity, and initiative with demands of party loyalty and orthodoxy."
It is almost like the CCP (and by extension the PLA) is fixated on communist orthodoxy and it is hurting the ability to innovate. Or perhaps these people are all morons.
I wasn't dismissive or arrogant, how you got that is bizarre. As I said, these are observations based on those of very intelligent people. It is almost like you are replying to something you have constructed in your mind. Look at your desperate attempt to find some non-existent disagreement about Sun Tzu. Nothing I said in my brief aside conflicts with what you are saying, yet here you are with a bizarre eisegesis ("bloodthirstiness"?..."scared of fighting"?) of a pedestrian comment about Sun Tzu's philosophy being based in preparation. This is New Atheist-tier pedantry.
Only an incredible civilization could last 5,000 years and I've said nothing against it.
The problem here seems to be that something I said bothered you, therefore there must be some bigotry or bias behind my comments. In that way your post gives off serious Scientological "what are your crimes?" vibes.
What do we think about the British invasion of Iceland in World War 2? Is there ever a circumstance where a country could invade a non-evil country in the interest of the greater good? I ask these questions out of curiosity, not as an attempted rebuttal of the post.
ReplyDeleteIt's worth noting that the British invaded Iceland 1) to protect the country from German invasion, which they believed was imminent, 2) with no intention to permanently (and unjustly) annex it for themselves, and 3) only after attempting to use diplomatic means to pursuade Iceland to accept protection freely. It is true that the threat of German invasion turned out to be illusory, and the British got lucky in not facing any resistance from the Icelanders (and therefore avoiding bloodshed), but the act does meet most of the criteria for a just war. Actually, despite being an invasion of a neutral power, the British occupation of Iceland is almost a textbook case of ticking all the just war boxes.
DeleteInteresting points, thank you. There are some parallels vis a vis Greenland, I think. Your point number 2 is the clearest deviation for me: Trump's plan to permanently annex the country.
DeleteA good reporter should ask Trump under what conditions he would authorize military force to seize control of Greenland. Maybe he thinks the Monroe Doctrine would justify it in some cases as Teddy Roosevelt and JFK did in their times.
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact that they already expect us to protect it.
DeleteIf the United States is already the world government, then annexing Greenland or any other nation is merely making explicit and de jure what was already implicit and de facto.
ReplyDeleteGreenland does not have independence because it is not militarily capable of defending itself against any serious attack. Therefore it is dependent on the goodwill of others for its own existence.
You don't make contracts with your children. You tell them what to do and they do it.
Holy shit. Alright, I didn't think anyone would out and out just admit "I am an imperialist", but hey, I guess you learn new things every day. So much for "Leader of the Free World".
DeleteWho are these people that are taking Trump’s “threat” seriously? At his core, Trump is an entertainer. The Danish and Canadian leadership know this. Take Canada. Making it the 51st state would be politically stupid for Trump, Vance and other Republican that wants to maintain power. It would be like adding another California to the electoral college.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I’m starting to see a split between what I’ll call principled conservatives and vulgar conservatives.
ReplyDeletePrincipled conservatives respect their nation’s laws, history, and institutions, flawed as they may be. The appreciate the wisdom of the Founders in devising a system of checks and balances which would curtail the ambitions of political actors. They recognize Acton’s warning that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Principled conservatives want to uphold the system of checks and balances, even if it means that the government will frequently do things which aren’t to their liking.
Vulgar conservatives, on the other hand, want absolute power. They want nothing more than to punish and humiliate their opponents with the power of the state, even if it means shredding the Bill of Rights and allowing a dictator to ignore the other branches of government and rule by fiat. Checks and balances to them are merely obstacles. Vulgar conservatives are also attracted to the idea of territorial expansion, even if it is morally indefensible and politically imprudent.
It’s becoming quite clear that Trump wants to be Sultan of America, not President of the United States. Principled conservatives should oppose his attempts to undo the longstanding foundations of American government, because those foundations are more important than one man or petty desire to humiliate the libs.
It’s “becoming” clear? It’s been clear to me since 2016 that is what he fundamentally wanted . But now he is in a position to potentially get it. I was a principled conservative in 2016, in 2020 and I still am. It’s a bit late for principled conservatives to wake up. He was always the greater danger than the liberal- left but that fact is just beginning to dawn on a few more .
DeleteI could certainly imagine many principled conservatives having major reservations about Trump I. 2016 and perhaps even voting for Hillary or a third party. But I could also imagine many of them holding their nose and voting for Trump because the Supreme Court and hence Roe v. Wade were on the ballot.
DeleteMy own view in 2016 was that Trump wanted to be a dictator, but it became clear to me during his first term that he was too unintelligent, disorganized and undisciplined to actually become one. He was a President during his first term, not a dictator, and he more or less acted within the established bounds of the office, and didn’t seriously challenge the separation of powers. The only norm he seriously challenged was the idea that Presidents should try to behave within some degree of dignity in the public eye. Trump had a few opportunities to see if he could become a dictator in 2020, including COVID and the BLM/George Floyd riots. But he didn’t take advantage of these crises, and didn’t even seriously make an effort to expand his powers while they were ongoing. Eventually I felt that the alarmists who said he was a dictator, the new Hitler, etc., were more concerned with style than substance.
I never voted for him, including in 2024. But in 2024, my fear wasn’t that he’d be a dictator but that he’d simply be an incompetent and embarrassing President as he was during his first term. I thought discourse about his dictatorial ambitions was crying wolf. But I forgot something important: there really *was* a wolf at the end of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
Many conservatives probably share many of Trump’s grievances against the political establishment, academia, the federal career bureaucracy, etc. But they must ask themselves: do I hate my enemies so much that I’m willing to see my country’s Constitution and tradition of separation of powers cast aside?
However, such military action would be manifestly contrary to the criteria of traditional just war theory.
ReplyDeleteI would go along with this.
The fact that the United States would find Greenland’s location and resources useful for purposes of defense is irrelevant.
I don't think the natural law makes this an absolutely done deal.
Greenland is a territory that is larger than Alaska, but has a population of just over 50,000. It has only 12 towns of over 1,000 people, and only 30 other towns over 100 people. In practical effect, it is virtually uninhabited. It is certainly not inhabited in a manner than makes it's ENTIRE territory of 800k sq. mi. integral to the well-being of its people. If Trump, or merely some US venture capitalists with Trump's implicit approval, simply moved people and equipment into an uninhabited area and started to build, what's natural law got to say about that? If in 15 years the US had 300k citizens there making a good go of it, there would be plausible reason to doubt the definiteness of Denmark's claim to retain it if the (then) residents wanted to unite with the US.
If there were a war (with Russia or China) and submarine naval warfare and air warfare meant the shores of Greenland were an issue, neither Greenland nor Denmark could keep the enemy out. The US might need to bolster its already existing base, and might need more bases to accomplish protection not only of Greenland itself but defense of the North Atlantic and the entire Atlantic seaboard. "Can't defend yourself nor prevent your territory from being of benefit to enemies of mankind" is a classic natural law basis for doubting the moral and legal independence of a territory. While I recognize that there are several moral quagmires in this area, the point is that there are ARE unsettled natural law issues and I don't think Prof. Feser's comments were as conclusive as it might appear. If there were a war, or immediate prospect of one.
I believe that Trump was absolutely and totally just trolling the Canadian leaders in his remarks about making Canada the 51st state: neither Republicans nor Democrats would sit for it, among other reasons. I don't know if Trump was doing something similar about Greenland, but the above comments about political maneuvering for other purposes makes more sense than simple territorial ambition on Trump's part. He certainly didn't campaign on this, and there's no BIG reason for Trump to push this merely for the territory. I think he's engaged on other maneuvers than what's on the surface.
That would be a classic American strategy, at least. This is exactly what happened with Texas, though the government was not organising it (to my knowledge). Seems like forcibly settling yourself in land already claimed by another is an act of aggression, though. After all, if a squatter moved into your garden shed on the argument that you hadn't used it in years, that wouldn't make it right, would it?
DeleteWhich is why motive actually matters in Christian Just War Theory. "I could use this land better than they can" or "They're not strong enough to survive in this 'might makes right' world" isn't much of a motive; in fact, both would be straightforward cases of injustice (not to mention not particularly conservative). We should be careful not to let Christian natural law metamorphose into pagan realpolitik.
DeleteSeems like forcibly settling yourself in land already claimed by another is an act of aggression, though. After all, if a squatter moved into your garden shed on the argument that you hadn't used it in years, that wouldn't make it right, would it?
DeleteThere is a BIG difference between settling in your garden shed 20 feet from your house, and settling land that is 300 miles from the closest human settlement. People have "claimed" land all the time that amounted to bogus claims. When Columbus "discovered" America, Spain claimed the whole thing. When Henry Hudson discovered areas of North America, Holland claimed it. In Virginia, Britain "gave" Lord Fairfax a huge swath of land, even though no Englishman had set foot in it. Half a dozen nations claimed to own Antarctica, though they didn't have permanent settlements there. Some enterprising people and entities claimed the Moon - maybe Armstrong should have claimed it in his second sentence after stepping down?
Claiming a land and actually having due and just claim to it are not identical. When you have 50,000 people claiming 800,000 square miles, the claim is not necessarily valid, or not necessarily valid enough to overcome all other claimants on various other grounds. Actually being present on the land and using it is a different kind of claim than the political claim that "that land way over there is attached to this land over here that we control, so that land over there is also under our control."
Nobody has contested Denmark's claim to the island for hundreds of years. Trying to act like it's suddenly up for grabs now is clear, naked imperialism. Or would it be a morally an intellectually serious proposal to suggest that Canadians might illegally settle in Montana, since so much of it is empty space? History matters. You're not talking about virgin, newly-discovered land.
DeleteAs a Dane, I have followed the whole Trump/Greenland situation closely, and I think I can safely say that for me and most of my countrymen, these last 100+ days of the return of Trump have felt both absurd and scary.
ReplyDeleteThe US certainly has legitimate security concerns in Greenland. But here is the thing: as NATO allies, the US already has de facto military control of Greenland. And in terms of resources, the other reason Trump cites for his wish to take over the island, Greenlanders have been saying for years that they are open for business. Trump and his billionaire buddies could start pumping money into mining and infrastructure today. There is no need to subjugate anyone.
But I think many of us suspect deep down that this is not really about security or resources. This is about the ego and personal ambition of a vain and vainglorious man. A man who has stated in interviews that he would like to be the first president in modern times to physically expand the US. A man who has succeeded in tapping into some part of the American psyche that says: Yes, we are America, and we should be able to do whatever we want.
I dont think Trump is playing any kind of 4d-chess. He might be a natural showman and selfpromoter, but he seems otherwise a very incompetent person, who this time around has surrounded himself with a lot of sychophants who owe their political careers to him.
The fact that so many Americans outside of the hardcore MAGA crowd would vote this man into the highest political office in the world not once but twice, I think says something quite damning about the political situation in the US.
The de facto two party system maybe has become too stale? Maybe its time to introduce more genuine options for the American voters?
This is exaclty it. People trying to cash out Trump's actions and motives in terms of some deeper philosophy than pure capricious egotism are giving it more thought than he ever has.
DeleteHi Andreas,
DeleteThanks for giving a Danish perspective.
From what I've been reading, most Greenlanders would prefer to be independent from Denmark. Do most Danish people oppose their independence?
Hi bmiller,
DeleteIt is written in Danish law that Greenland can vote for full independence whenever they wish to do so. I don’t think many Danes would oppose it (nor could they, legally). The general consensus is that this is a matter for the people of Greenland to decide. I do think however, that some parts of the political establishment would see it as a kind of failure of the state, if it ever happens.
I think the vast majority of Greenlanders don’t want to be Danes, nor Americans, nor anything other than Greenlanders. They want to build up their own country, and they would love more economic cooperation with the US. But it seems abundantly clear that Trump is not interested in mere cooperation. Also I think the Greenlanders are acutely aware of how the Inuits of Alaska have been treated, along with other indigenous people in the US.
In fact, Trump and people like J.D. Vance have completely botched up the whole “winning hearts and minds” thing with their aggressive and disrespectful rhetoric. Take as an example the speech Trump did in Congress a couple a months ago, where he said they would get Greenland one way or the other. And then, astonishingly, people were laughing, and you saw the grinning faces of J.D. Vance and Mike Johnson behind the president. Imagine being a Greenlander and seeing that. Trump talks about them as if they were small children and not a proud people with their own culture, land and government.
From a Danish perspective this feels like a stab in the back from what we thought was a great ally that we shared values with. Now it seems the US has become a borderline hostile nation, a foreign actor that seems to want to undermine the integrity of the Kingdom all because of a land grab. A straight up robbery, as Feser wrote.
Hi Andreas,
DeleteThanks.
I really don't know too much about Denmark's relationship with Greenland so I wonder if you could explain why you think they would want independence from Denmark. You mention mistreatment of the Inuits. Did Denmark mistreat the Inuits of Greenland?
If Greenland voted for and achieved independence from Denmark who do you think should defend them from invasion or from foreign influence in their affairs? Would Denmark leave them to their fate?
You're never going to introduce more than two parties without overhauling the First Past The Post electoral system. That system essentially forces politics to revolve around two parties exclusively, and given that maintaining it is in the interest of both parties, I have doubts about the feasibility of that kind of project. Maybe if America collapses and is rebuilt, then it could happen.
DeleteNo problem, bmiller. Of course, I´m only expressing my own opinions here, but I do believe opinions like these are pretty widespread in Denmark.
DeleteCertainly, the colonial history between Denmark and Greenland has been complex and often painful. Denmark has done its share of shameful things in the past. But the ties between the countries are also centuries old and run deep. There are many people of mixed heritage in both Greenland and Denmark.
The Greenlanders know very well that in some complete sense, they will never be fully independent. They need strong economic ties with other countries to maintain a modern living standard in such a small population. But like all other people, they do want to be masters of their own house, and choose themselves who they will be dependent on.
Right now, the Greenlanders have a pretty good “deal” with Denmark. Among other things, they have complete ownership of the land and all the natural resources on the island. Everything that can be mined or pumped from the underground belongs to the Greenlanders. They also choose themselves the level of autonomy they have. As their economy grows, they can take on more and more responsibility, all the way up to full independence and severance from the Kingdom. They are fully represented in the Danish parliament, they enjoy universal healthcare and free education, and they have more than two parties to vote for when its election time.
Will any of this be guaranteed under Trump?
Trump is supposedly some kind of master dealmaker, but so far, all he has offered Greenlanders are threats of invasion, belittling rhetoric, and some vague and inane promise that they will be “cherished and loved”, as if they were pets.
I can imagine a scenario where Greenland would freely choose to enter into a more formal relationship with the US. But that scenario will likely take years, possibly decades, to achieve. Years where America show their genuine goodwill towards the Greenlanders and nurture relations with the country. But Trump is getting old, he doesn’t have years to spend nurturing anything. It´s all about that personal glory for him, about getting his name in the history books as the greatest American real estate magnate since The Louisiana Purchase.
Thanks again Andreas.
DeleteI think you're saying that, practically, Greenlanders would need the protection of other more powerful nations in order to at least maintain what autonomy they currently have. That seems to make sense to me.
It also sounds like you are not opposed to Greenlanders leaving the Kingdom for some other arrangements. But it has to be someone other than Trump that negotiates those arrangements.
What if Trump offered them a better deal than Denmark is giving them?
Right now, there is no indication whatsoever that any meaningful amount of Greenlanders want to become American. On the contrary, this whole Trump ordeal seems to have spooked them, and actually strengthened the ties with Denmark. That is one upshot of this, the reinvigoration of the union between Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Denmark.
DeleteHi Andreas,
DeleteIt seems a significant number of Greenlanders want to be independent of Denmark for whatever reason. From what I've read, of those that want to remain are concerned about that it would lower standard their of living.
Maybe becoming independent from Denmark and negotiating a good economic/defense deal with America will improve their situation. Regardless of personalities.
Since Denmark has agreed in principle that Greenland is free to go, then shouldn't the Danish wish the best for them?
Hi bmiller,
DeleteThe key word here is independence. That is what I think Greenlanders want. They don’t want to be Americans.
This is 2025, not 1825. Greenland is free to pursue whatever future they want, it is written in the law. The problem is, so far the only thing the clownish Trump administration has done is threaten invasion, as well as trying to start a campaign of besmirching Denmark, one the oldest and staunchest allies of the US. This is all something that could have been taken straight out of the playbook of Putin.
Where is this great offer that would entice the Greenlanders? So far, we have seen nothing. And Trump certainly doesn’t seem to be interested in just negotiating a good economic/defense deal. If that was all, there would be no problem. Both Greenlanders and Danes would love a good, mutually beneficial deal. But Trump wants dominance, and to add landmass to the American nation.
Hi Andreas,
DeleteInteresting. I haven't seen reports of Trump besmirching Denmark. Is that what the European press is reporting?
Most likely, once Greenland has gained independence, then the US would enter into a "Compact of Free Association" with them. It has this type of agreement with some independent nations in the Pacific Ocean. It doesn't mean dominance nor will it add landmass to the US. The COFA seems to be the type of deal you would not be opposed to. Is that correct?
Hi bmiller,
DeleteThere has been an attempt to discredit Denmark. Check out the story of Donald Trump Jr. visiting Greenland back in January.
I have heard about the free association agreements, but I don’t know much about them in detail. Do you think that could be an attractive alternative to Greenland?
Hi Andreas,
DeleteI Googled "did Trump Jr discredit Denmark" and also used Gemini but couldn't find anything. Is there something specific you can point me to that you think is an attempt to discredit Denmark?
Regarding COFA's and Greenland. Since it recognizes their idependence and provides for financial assistance wouldn't that be better for them from your point of view? It seems the only thing holding back the indepedence movement in Greenland is the fear of losing Danish financial support (which they would with independence), but the COFA would offset that.
Here's a US website outlining the agreements the US has with various Islands that are not part of any US state: https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands
Here's also an interesting article about the former "Danish West Indies", the last time Denmark made a deal with the US regarding their colonies. It seems 64% of the Danish approved the transfer as did 99% of the Islanders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Virgin_Islands
Hi bmiller,
DeleteMaybe it hasn´t been reported much outside of Danish media, but I found this article in english, from The Guardian. Trump Jr. visited the capital of Nuuk for a few hours, with a film-crew and a pro-Trump youtuber. The intent seemed to be to frame the whole thing as if Greenland was oppressed under the boot of Denmark, and that Greenlanders were crying out for Trump to come rescue them.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/16/homeless-people-given-free-lunch-to-attend-donald-trump-jr-event-in-greenland
Also, check out these two articles. One is a column written by an actual Greenlander, the other an interview with some locals. As you can see, many Greenlanders aren´t particularly impressed with Denmark, especially when it comes to reconciliation about things done in the past. But that doesn´t mean they want to be American.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/10/trump-greenland-us-denmark-donald-trump-jr
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/17/it-should-be-up-to-us-greenlanders-on-trump-denmark-and-their-land
I think it could very well happen that Greenland would eventually enter into some kind of free association deal with the US. As you can read in the links, there are already politicians in Greenland working towards this. But I have also read Greenlanders who believe they should play it more smart. Right now, they are in a position where they could gain a lot from both the US and Denmark (and through Denmark, the EU).
Hi Andreas,
DeleteThanks for the link to the free lunch story, but I don't see it as implying that Denmark is oppressing Greenland. It seems to me to be a story about Trump Jr recruiting clueless homeless people to a free lunch to show fake support. In other words it was written to discredit Trump Jr., not to discredit Denmark.
The second link you provided actually had a link to a Trump Jr video where he actually mentioned that Greenlanders told him that the Danish treated them badly, so that could be considered discrediting Denmark. But the author also agrees it's true. It seems you do too.
So, when Donald Trump Jr said after his visit that people in Greenland are tired of being “treated like second- or third-class citizens” by Denmark, I couldn’t disagree.
It could benefit both Denmark and Greenland if Greenland became independent from Denmark and became closer to the US. Denmark would be freed of the financial burden of supporting a distant colony that few ever visit. Greenland could be more autonomous with greater opportunities for development. And the US will be in a better position to defend itself and NATO.
I wonder what the Danish people think they would be losing by letting the Greenlanders go.
Tony,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the extra information.
There could be possible justifications for the US to take control of Greenland. In fact, FDR did in fact take over Greenland do to: "Can't defend yourself nor prevent your territory from being of benefit to enemies of mankind" when Nazi Germany took over Denmark and the US was not even at war with Germany at that point. Maybe it was wrong to do so, but then FDR should be part of this criticism also.
Well put. Unfortunately, princes have rarely if ever given heed to morality when deciding their affairs. The sordid history of mankind shows plentiful examples that even professedly (and in some cases provably genuine) Christian kings are more than willing to violate the natural law in the interests of "realpolitik" - or as it might more accurately be called, power politics. Perhaps it's a statement on our fallen nature that, when given supreme power and removed from the possibility of punishment from an earthly higher power, the instinct of most humans is to take every advantage that they can, no matter the injustice involved. Believing that such actions are wrong usually doesn't stop them, instead it inspires them to concoct rationalisations for their actions.
ReplyDeleteWould it be wrong for Trump to remove the U.S. military from Greenland and announce that the U.S. will not come to the defense of Greenland if invaded?
ReplyDeleteWait a minute!? Are you saying that actually, the security of Greenland is not a matter of world peace, as Trump claims? In fact, US is only defending Greenland out of the goodness of their heart? They should actually withdraw their military, if the Greenlanders dont show sufficient gratitude?
DeleteCome on. I think we all know that the US is not securing Greenland for the sake of Greenland, but for the sake of themselves.
Why this obsession with ownership? If the security of Greenland is so important, just get on with it. You already have full military control of the island through NATO.
Yes it would be wrong because it would be a repudiation of article 5 of the NATO Treaty. It would show that, under Trump, the US does not honor its treaties.
DeletePublic repudiation of Article 5 would destroy NATO. Why would anyone trust it security to a power that has demonstrated its willingness to devour its allies whenever it suits them? That is not alliance, but a vain attempt to placate a ravenous monster.
DeleteAs several commenters have either mentioned or alluded to above, I think the accurate characterization of the Trumpian position is not "he is just using this as a negotiating tactic," but rather the fact that neither Denmark nor Greenland could exist at all in anything like their current form without the US defense umbrella and the US economy, so therefore their sovereignty is fictional, anyway. If the US decided to "invade" Greenland simply by placing military assets their without consulting the governing bodies of either Greenland or Denmark, it's doubtful anyone would even get hurt, let alone fight an actual war.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right. Sadly, and scarily, that is how how many Trump supporters view the world.
DeleteIt is strange. For the last 80 years, half the world has been bending over backwards to accommodate US interests. No single country has gained more from the world order set up after WW2 than the USA. Global trade, NATO, international rule of law, Pax Americana and so on. And we in Europe were largely happy to accommodate it, because we saw how it also benefited us.
Because of these things, the US today is the only true superpower in the world. The biggest economy, the richest country to ever exist, with a military reach and soft power that China can only dream of. And yet, for some reason, millions of Americans seem to feel like they have been shafted in the grand scheme of things, and that the rest of the world somehow owes them something. Rich soil for a demagogue like Trump.
Sorry, forgot to put my name on it. The above post is from Andreas.
DeleteIf this is indeed Trump's position, then it's a ludicrous and morally unserious one. You are not morally entitled to someone's land just because you are militarily stronger than them, that's the Might Makes Right position of a Godless heathen. Even taking it at face value, "Denmark could not exist in its modern state without the USA" doesn't mean anything relevant. There might be *some* validity (albeit dubious and morally hazardous) in taking over another's land if they are an outright failed state incapable of maintaining order or providing for their people, but it is obvious that that doesn't apply to Denmark. They would be poorer without Translatlantic trade, yes, but they would not collapse into anarchy. The fact that you enable someone else's way of life also does not entitle you to steal their property. In addition, I find that this line of reasoning usually carries the belief (explicit or not) that the other country is exploiting or "ripping off" America, as if America did not also benefit from the relationship. This kind of "logic" seems to permeate a lot of Trumpian thought - witness the casting of trade deficits as not only bad in themselves but also inherently exploitative, as if a poor country selling to a rich country and not being able to buy an equivalent amount back was some kind of nefarious, rotten fraud. It's like the goods America gets from these deals somehow "don't count" as things of value, or as if America were inherently entitled to them, and thus it's unfair that money has to leave the country to acquire them.
Delete(PS: Yes, I'm aware that many NATO members fail to meet the 2% military spending target. This is a fair issue, but is not enough by itself to support the claim that America's relationship with NATO is exploitative rather than mutually beneficial.)
Which is a fine argument if you're a pagan despot or feudal baron. It's not a position that should convince a Christian of any stripe.
DeleteAlso, the US took on the defense of Western Europe voluntarily, and it's kind of rich for the leader of a country that has embassies and defense treaties and trade agreements with Denmark to suddenly start questioning its sovereignty. If Trump really wants us to buy this argument, he first needs to withdraw both from the UN and NATO, neither of which accepts his "might makes right" approach to national sovereignty.
Andreas,
DeleteFrom what I've seen, the corporate media in Europe does not accurately represent the reality in the US, but that is hardly surprising since they do the same thing in here. Millions of Americans have been shafted. Half the population doesn't have access to 1,000 dollars in case of an emergency. Large sections of the country are wastelands of abandoned factories. The people who lost those jobs to the global division of labor had pain pills and fentanyl dumped on them, claiming 400,000 lives in just the last 5 years. The top 10% own 60% of the wealth. The bottom 50% own 6% of the wealth. It is a common thing for people, especially seniors, to have to choose between medicine or food. It goes on and on.
Most people on the coasts see the thriving economy that you speak of and they seem to have no idea that so much of the country is in such a desperate situation. And of those that do know, few seem to care. Trump is the first politician in a long time to actually connect with these people and to address their real grievances. He would not exist if the working and middle class had not been treated so poorly. This is also why they are so loyal to him, they see him as the only one who cares. That a bloated narcissist billionaire is seen by the poor as their champion is a devastating indictment of our failed and worthless leaders.
I think the comment above nails it on the head. The root cause of all of this is the huge inequality of wealth in the US.
DeleteInvading Greeland is just another "magic coin" for Trump to use to "flood the zone" and distract people from the harm he is doing to our government. Like trying to illegally fire the Librarian of Congress, which even some Republican leaders are pushing back on.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/14/library-of-congress-trump-takeover-carla-hayden-00349275
So you think Trump's master plan is to fake an invasion of Greenland so people won't notice he fired the "Librarian of Congress". That is an entirely new level of evil genius.
DeleteWhile the Library of Congress serves an important set of functions for Congress, the particular office of Librarian of Congress is filled by an executive branch official (overseeing executive matters concerned with copyright) who is appointed by the President and therefore (by both normal construction and precedent) removable by the President; see, e.g.,
Deletehttps://law.justia.com/codes/us/title-2/chapter-5/sec-136-1/
And I would add cutting Medicaid, which even Sen. Josh Hawley called "morally wrong."
Deletehttps://unherd.com/newsroom/why-is-josh-hawley-the-only-republican-defending-medicaid/
And cutting funding to the NIH and FDA
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-trump-administrations-nih-and-fda-cuts-will-negatively-impact-patients/
And cutting funding to the USDA where local farmers got paid to provide produce to food banks across the country.
https://www.today.com/food/news/usda-food-bank-cuts-rcna200070
And trying to suspend the Writ of Habeus Corpus
https://truthout.org/articles/stephen-millers-argument-for-suspending-habeas-corpus-is-legal-garbage/
Etc. Etc.
Anonymous
ReplyDeletePer the U.S.C, the president can fire the Librarian of Congress but the successor must be confirmed by the Senate. Trump appointed his Deputy Attorney General as a replacement, which is a sham appointment and another way for him to assert control over Congress.
And he's probably hiding books on Greenland in the library right now as part of Trump's evil plan.
DeleteSpeaking of books, bmiller, you need to read some history books. On May 11, you wrote that maybe it was wrong for FDR to take over Greenland since we were not at war with Germany yet. But you see, Germany invaded Poland in 1939 and invaded France in May 1940. In July 1940 the air war between Germany and Britain, the Battle of Britain had begun. In April 1941, the Danish prime minister in Washington,DC signed a treaty with the U.S. authorizing the U.S. to protect Greenland and FDR invoked the Monroe Doctrine. Even though we were not yet at war with Germany, it was obvious to FDR that war was imminent. He was fully justified in signing the treaty to protect Greenland and the security of the U.S.
DeleteMJR,
Delete"In April 1941, the Danish prime minister in Washington, DC signed a treaty with the U.S. authorizing the U.S. to protect Greenland "
Denmark's government was under control of Nazi Germany at that time. Danish Envoy Henrik Kauffmann acted independently (and was charged with treason for doing so) and FDR knew it.
But the real question is "Did FDR invade Greenland to distract people from noticing that he was firing bureaucrats?"
bmiller,
ReplyDeleteYou need to do more research. Kaufmann was charged and sentenced for treason by Denmark for signing the treaty with FDR to protect Greenland, but Kaufmann, knowing Greenland was occupied by Nazi Germany, ignored the charge. After the liberation of Greenland in 1945, his sentence was revoked by the Danish Parliament. Kaufmann's treaty is remains the legal basis for the U.S. Thule Air Base in Greenland.
As for your question, FDR did not invade Greenland. He established a protectorate to prevent Nazi Germany from invading Greenland. He wasn't firing bureaucrats. He was acting in the best interests of the United States and Greenland.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteHave a nice day.
bmiller.
DeleteAnd you as well.
It seems like the fast-fish or loose-fish rule from “Moby Dick” is the only rule that countries follow in practice. If a whale is tethered to a ship, then it belongs that that ship’s crew; if it is not secured then it belongs to whichever crew can be first to claim it. Does a ship have a right to hold onto a whale that it can’t secure? Must a crew help another crew secure a whale they don’t have the skill to land. If you have land that you can’t secure, it seems that it’s only a matter of time before someone takes it from you. Are people obliged to offer protection free of charge?
ReplyDelete