The exclusion on his part during his speech in , of the possible use of force for the acquisition of , but also the fact that the president did not fully withdraw from his demand for the acquisition of the island stand the international media, as well as officials in their comments after the speech.
Denmark: “Positive that it backed down on the use of force, negative that it continues to make demands”
The dance of statements was opened by the directly interested Danish Foreign Minister Lars Loke Rasmussen, who noted that the fact that Trump made it clear that he is not considering the use of force is something positive, but he noted that his demand remains. He stressed that the Danish government has kept Greenland out of Chinese investment and away from Chinese influence, while making it clear that his government will keep diplomatic channels on the matter open.
What are the international media saying?
Most of the international media also stand by the fact that Trump requested a negotiation for the acquisition of Greenland, but also by the fact that he ruled out the possibility of military intervention, but there are not a few that host analyzes about other parts of his speech.
For example, the New York Times in their headline on the liveblog about Trump’s speech in Davos gives a different perspective on the matter claiming that “The President issues a stern warning to Europe in Davos”. Accordingly, the FT hosts an article analyzing how “Trump’s Greenland feud is derailing Ukraine’s post-war deal.”
At the same time, the governor of California and favorite for the Democratic candidate in the next elections, Gavin Newsom, the far-right leader of Britain, Nigel Farage, and also the activist arm of Greenpeace in Britain made comments about Trump’s speech and parts of it in international media.
Gavin Newsom: “Trump’s speech completely boring”
More specifically, Gavin Newsom, who was present at Trump’s speech, described it in his statements to the media, as “one of the most meaningless hours I’ve spent in recent years – and I think the whole world as well.” As he added: “It was meaningless in its meaninglessness. He said what we all knew – that he was not going to invade Greenland.”
Newsom called the speech “boring and, at times, rude. Fire and fury that equates to absolutely nothing, literally.”
Newsom said Europe “should be concerned if it doesn’t respond with determination, with a commitment to stand up – and what other proof do you need of that than today”? As noted, the reaction of European leaders, including French President Emmanuel Macron, appeared to have restrained Trump.
According to him, Trump “reacted to what happened yesterday, and a lot of things happened yesterday – it wasn’t just Macron’s and the EU president’s speeches or Carney’s speech, but the markets reacted as well.”
Reactions from climate organizations
On the part of the Greenpeace UK climate change activist, in her statements to the Guardian she said that the US president is wrong to call for more fossil fuel extraction in her country:
“Trump’s knowledge of North Sea oil and gas is like a pile of lies. More oil and gas from UK fields won’t take a pound off our bills, taxes on extractive companies are far lower than claimed, and natural gas reserves are running out. Our best hope to lower bills and boost energy security is to renovate our leaky homes and invest even more in domestic renewable energy. The UK government can ignore the advice of a climate change denier funded by the fossil fuel industry and get on with working to protect the country from the volatility of oil and gas.”
Nigel Farage would feel safer if US took Greenland
The leader of Britain’s far-right Reform UK, Nigel Farage, one of the orchestrators of Brexit, joined the dance of statements, who argued at an event in Davos at the USA House (the base of the American delegation) that the world would be “a better and safer place” if the United States took control of Greenland. However, Farage admitted that such a move would not be compatible with national sovereignty or his belief in national self-determination.
According to British media he said:
“I have no doubt that the world would be better and safer if a strong America had Greenland, because of the geopolitical importance of the Arctic North, because of the melting of the ice, and because of the continued expansion of Russian icebreakers and Chinese investment. So would America owning Greenland be better for the world in terms of security and make NATO stronger? Yes. However, if you believe in Brexit and if you celebrate 250 years of America, if you believe in nation states rather than globalized structures, you believe in sovereignty. And if you believe in sovereignty, you believe in the principle of national self-determination.”
