For once, it needs to be an attractive number for Denmark, more attractive than the unknown, but probably huge future value of such a big uninhabited place. $5T is about 12 years of Denmark GDP, and 10-20 times earnings is a good company acquisition price metric.
We are talking selling it forever. Just think how ridiculously cheap previous land purchases (Alaska, ...) now seem in hindsight.
Denmark is not really in the position to really use that place, even in the future. The only thing they can do with it is sell it, so the question becomes when and for how much.
Timing is also important. Apparently Greenlanders don't feel very Danish. At what point in a rise to prosperity would they simply demand independence? Not even a sale, just Greenland being its own independent nation. It'd be unseemly for a modern progressive state like Denmark to demand tribute in exchange for freedom.
If I'm a superpower with plans for Greenland, using the usual tricks to create unrest that leads to calls for independence would be a likely first step.
> "Denmark is not really in the position to really use that place, even in the future. The only thing they can do with it is sell it, so the question becomes when and for how much."
Greenland is a dependent territory, but it is not part of Denmark. I invite you to review the right to self-determination as enshrined in the charter of the United Nations.
It would ultimately be up to the people of Greenland whether they want to "sell" their country. Not, according to the principles of the UN, something that Denmark could do unilaterally.
Well here's the premise that nobody is talking about -
If China continues to ascend toward military superpower status and they aggressively press on a position regarding Greenland, the US will invade Greenland to secure the territory.
The US has been willing to invade all manner of foreign nations over the past ~75 years for varying reasons. The idea of China occupying Greenland militarily in any manner will never - not under any circumstances - be tolerated by the Pentagon and politicians in DC. Greenland is a militarily critical territory for the US superpower. The US military will invade and occupy Greenland, against the protest of the EU, Denmark, Russia and everybody else. It'll be argued as a national security matter of utmost importance and that will be the justification. They'd also say it's temporary (it wouldn't be). It'd be an annexation in everything except for name.
The US will take Greenland for $0, outside of the cost of occupation.
edit: people will downvote this because it's so upsetting. I understand. Back in reality, it's by far the most likely scenario in the next 30 years. The US paying $5t or $10t? It would never happen. Why would you do that if you're a military superpower, when you can trivially invade any time you want to, under any pretense. The US went into Vietnam and fought in a civil war that wasn't its own, a war that killed millions. But the US won't invade Greenland (a whopping 56k people) and occupy it, to keep it from China (a new military superpower setting up shop right up the street from the US)? Yeah right. An interesting part of this, is that the same people that think the US is an evil superpower, will pretend this isn't the obvious scenario that is going to happen (we'll go into Iraq, but not Greenland, etc). The US will declare that it's necessary to keep Greenland and its people safe.
Here's the propaganda bumper sticker for when it happens: Keep Greenland Safe! Short & easy to sell to the American people, it'll be on every truck.
Greenland is a NATO member and, via Denmark, represented in the European Union. Greenland ain't worth picking that fight over. China won't invade it for much the same reason.
There would be no fight over it. It's a territorial protection maneuver to protect Greenland, led by the US.
US media combo military industrial complex headline: US does the security job that some NATO members refuse to do.
The PR push would be that it's not an annexation. It's not an occupation. It is temporary. It's about keeping Greenland safe, defending Greenland.
The representation at the EU via Denmark is meaningless. Neither Denmark nor the EU have any military power to stop the US from doing this. The US will easily be able to muddy the water enough politically by leaning on allies in Europe like Poland and Britain, to argue that it is in fact important to keep Greenland safe. In the end nobody will really do anything to stop it.
Which part of NATO is going to fight the US to stop this exactly? Right, none of it.
You know how batshit crazy Iraq was? 10x more so than what going into Greenland would be by comparison. And yet the US won't do it? Of course it will, if it thinks it needs to in order to prevent China from setting up there militarily. There are countless ways to spin it, to play it, in order to get from point A to point occupation re NATO.
Why invade? The Navy would just form a blockade to prevent Chinese ships from approaching if it ever came to that.
China has zero force projection capability outside of Asia. Their is no chance they are pulling off an invasion of Greenland anytime in the foreseeable future.
Also we already have an Air Force base in Greenland--there is no realastic scenario where a US invasion is necessary or even useful.
"Nope we aren't leaving. Any attempt to force us to leave will be seen as a hostile action, as will any attempt to establish a Chinese military presence."
Greenland might be one of the more desirable landmasses 50-100 years from now. Strategically very important, and when it warms up more cities, economy and tourism will thrive as well.
I think it has a big lake in the middle of it that takes up a significant part of the land mass. IIRC it's a depression caused by the ice sheet pushing down on the land mass.
There is a good tv series called Trapped that takes places in Iceland and they discuss selling a port or something to Chinese interests and there is a lot of mixed feelings about it. While Iceland is not Greenland I think it is possible that this theme in the tv series is echoing comparable anxieties in Iceland.
I've long wondered what would be the outcome if the UK decided to auction off the Falkland Islands. Obviously Argentina would be an emotional bidder, perhaps paying far more than necessary or maybe not bidding at all, claiming it would legitimize what they see as an unlawful occupation.
Bolivia could use it as an opportunity to once again have a blue water navy. It otherwise wouldn't make sense for them but it's another case of national pride.
Or maybe China would want it to gain a foothold in the western hemisphere. Lots of possibilities.
A land locked nation and blue water navy ?! Navy is different from Blue Water Navy. One must understand there are barely 4 blue water navies in the world on a good day.
Based on the Wikipedia definitions, I'd change my post to Green Water Navy. Bolivia currently has a Brown Water Navy but once upon a time wasn't landlocked and had naval vessels out in the oceans. This would give them the opportunity to have that again. Of course they could simply port their ocean vessels in another country but this is pretty much all about pride rather than practicality.
I think the veterans and their families who fought and died so that the Falkland Islander's wish to remain British was respected would have a few choice words to say about the idea of selling the islands off.
I think any politician who suggested it would find themselves in a lot of trouble very quickly.
I don't know. Maybe this article is biased: China gets access to each country's raw materials - minerals, metals, wood, fuel, foodstuffs. Still, this doesn't usually mean long-term jobs for local people. Large numbers of Chinese are usually brought in to do the work. Country after country has discovered that Chinese investment helps China's economy a great deal more than it helps them. And in some places - South Africa is one of them - there are complaints that China's involvement tends to bring greater corruption.
yeah. I wondered about the objectivity because it says "there are complaints that China's involvement tends to bring greater corruption" and because I looked in vain for any positive message about countries that have historically done deals with China. at least some of these deals in some of these countries must have been positive somewhere, but this article does not give that view as much voice.
and, on the other side, where is the objectivity and criticism about the already present US military base? US bases are notorious for polluting the land and water with toxic and hazardous substances. there's a long history of such problems on former US military bases, even those within the US. but this article does not mention it.
What you describe sounds beyond the scope of the article. This is a news article from a daily news operation, not an investigation.
It sounds like what you're looking for is long-form in-depth analysis. You're not going to get that from the news section of the BBC web site. That's not what it's for.
What you desire would be found in another part of the BBC, or a reputable magazine, or a book, or a documentary.
In Cambodia, the Chinese have invested heavily in Shihanoukville, which the government there have boasted about before. But all the casinos and hotels they built are Chinese-language, staffed by Chinese people, and serving Chinese customers. The local Khmer people cannot get jobs there, and have been pushed out of the town.
In Bali, Chinese tour operators package Chinese-owned hotels and Chinese-owned restaurants for Chinese citizens to enjoy. They make a mess of the beauty spots and don't spend any money on local businesses. The Balinese are furious but can't do anything about it.
In Thailand, the story is much the same. Chinese business profit, the local economy doesn't.
Learning Mandarin doesn't help - the Chinese tourists don't appear to want to have any contact with the locals.
Western tourists may be rude, ignorant, drunken and disrespectable, but they have always been a good source of income.
In Australia, there are Chinese mines entirely staffed with Chinese workers, flown there direct from China. The local population get zero economic benefit. The state governments get royalty payments for the mine (that every mining operation has to pay).
I don't think the article is biased. I think it understates the situation.
56,000 people living in Greenland times avg income 33,000 = 1.8 billion. Give each greenlander 100 years of income now (3.3 million each, total 180 billion) - who can resist. Throw in a couple of trillions to the chiefs - Saudis will turn green from envy. This could be deal of a century.
A bit of a hostile takeover with respect to Denmark, but still good deal for greenlanders.
While I would agree on the math and the incentives of your approach if it was pure business, that's very wrong to see it that way. You guys are talking about real people and their country.
after seeing the mess the Chinese have made in Cambodia, where there are much fewer cultural differences, it's not a good deal. It's handing their children a nightmare.
There is a TV series about Danish politics - Borgen. In one of the episodes they had to deal with chiefs from Greenland. The whole scene looked like negotiating with the union - tough, hostile and ready to accept large amounts of cash. I think Trump and Chinese are moving in the right direction, question is who will be first.
Can't we find a more direct reason to rattle our sabers? This is literally on the other side of the globe from China, so it's a bit unseemly... Regardless, war media will need to update this project to eliminate "(2018)" disclaimer.
41 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 88.4 ms ] threadI say at least $5 trillion, maybe even $10T.
As for the population, you can individually buy the vast majority of them off with $1 mil - $5 mil per person, so that a referendum passes.
> To recap, the estimated range is $200 million to $1.7 trillion, which as suspected comes with cartoonishly large error bars.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/16/trump-wan...
For once, it needs to be an attractive number for Denmark, more attractive than the unknown, but probably huge future value of such a big uninhabited place. $5T is about 12 years of Denmark GDP, and 10-20 times earnings is a good company acquisition price metric.
We are talking selling it forever. Just think how ridiculously cheap previous land purchases (Alaska, ...) now seem in hindsight.
Denmark is not really in the position to really use that place, even in the future. The only thing they can do with it is sell it, so the question becomes when and for how much.
If I'm a superpower with plans for Greenland, using the usual tricks to create unrest that leads to calls for independence would be a likely first step.
Only in Silicon Valley playing with VC$. 2-4x earnings would be (have been?) a normal multiple for valuation.
Greenland is a dependent territory, but it is not part of Denmark. I invite you to review the right to self-determination as enshrined in the charter of the United Nations.
It would ultimately be up to the people of Greenland whether they want to "sell" their country. Not, according to the principles of the UN, something that Denmark could do unilaterally.
If China continues to ascend toward military superpower status and they aggressively press on a position regarding Greenland, the US will invade Greenland to secure the territory.
The US has been willing to invade all manner of foreign nations over the past ~75 years for varying reasons. The idea of China occupying Greenland militarily in any manner will never - not under any circumstances - be tolerated by the Pentagon and politicians in DC. Greenland is a militarily critical territory for the US superpower. The US military will invade and occupy Greenland, against the protest of the EU, Denmark, Russia and everybody else. It'll be argued as a national security matter of utmost importance and that will be the justification. They'd also say it's temporary (it wouldn't be). It'd be an annexation in everything except for name.
The US will take Greenland for $0, outside of the cost of occupation.
edit: people will downvote this because it's so upsetting. I understand. Back in reality, it's by far the most likely scenario in the next 30 years. The US paying $5t or $10t? It would never happen. Why would you do that if you're a military superpower, when you can trivially invade any time you want to, under any pretense. The US went into Vietnam and fought in a civil war that wasn't its own, a war that killed millions. But the US won't invade Greenland (a whopping 56k people) and occupy it, to keep it from China (a new military superpower setting up shop right up the street from the US)? Yeah right. An interesting part of this, is that the same people that think the US is an evil superpower, will pretend this isn't the obvious scenario that is going to happen (we'll go into Iraq, but not Greenland, etc). The US will declare that it's necessary to keep Greenland and its people safe.
Here's the propaganda bumper sticker for when it happens: Keep Greenland Safe! Short & easy to sell to the American people, it'll be on every truck.
US media combo military industrial complex headline: US does the security job that some NATO members refuse to do.
The PR push would be that it's not an annexation. It's not an occupation. It is temporary. It's about keeping Greenland safe, defending Greenland.
The representation at the EU via Denmark is meaningless. Neither Denmark nor the EU have any military power to stop the US from doing this. The US will easily be able to muddy the water enough politically by leaning on allies in Europe like Poland and Britain, to argue that it is in fact important to keep Greenland safe. In the end nobody will really do anything to stop it.
Which part of NATO is going to fight the US to stop this exactly? Right, none of it.
You know how batshit crazy Iraq was? 10x more so than what going into Greenland would be by comparison. And yet the US won't do it? Of course it will, if it thinks it needs to in order to prevent China from setting up there militarily. There are countless ways to spin it, to play it, in order to get from point A to point occupation re NATO.
China has zero force projection capability outside of Asia. Their is no chance they are pulling off an invasion of Greenland anytime in the foreseeable future.
Also we already have an Air Force base in Greenland--there is no realastic scenario where a US invasion is necessary or even useful.
"Nope we aren't leaving. Any attempt to force us to leave will be seen as a hostile action, as will any attempt to establish a Chinese military presence."
That's all it takes.
I doubt it will be that simple.
If I was making the deal (which is a terrible idea), I'd go for a flat amount around $100B, then 10% of revenue for 100 years.
Bolivia could use it as an opportunity to once again have a blue water navy. It otherwise wouldn't make sense for them but it's another case of national pride.
Or maybe China would want it to gain a foothold in the western hemisphere. Lots of possibilities.
The distinction is important, here is a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-water_navy
I think any politician who suggested it would find themselves in a lot of trouble very quickly.
Found some news that China already withdrew its bid after US pressure
I read the passage you quoted carefully, and I don't see the bias. Each sentence has been the subject of media coverage for the last five years or so.
Is there a specific sentence, or word to which you object?
and, on the other side, where is the objectivity and criticism about the already present US military base? US bases are notorious for polluting the land and water with toxic and hazardous substances. there's a long history of such problems on former US military bases, even those within the US. but this article does not mention it.
It sounds like what you're looking for is long-form in-depth analysis. You're not going to get that from the news section of the BBC web site. That's not what it's for.
What you desire would be found in another part of the BBC, or a reputable magazine, or a book, or a documentary.
In Bali, Chinese tour operators package Chinese-owned hotels and Chinese-owned restaurants for Chinese citizens to enjoy. They make a mess of the beauty spots and don't spend any money on local businesses. The Balinese are furious but can't do anything about it.
In Thailand, the story is much the same. Chinese business profit, the local economy doesn't.
Learning Mandarin doesn't help - the Chinese tourists don't appear to want to have any contact with the locals.
Western tourists may be rude, ignorant, drunken and disrespectable, but they have always been a good source of income.
In Australia, there are Chinese mines entirely staffed with Chinese workers, flown there direct from China. The local population get zero economic benefit. The state governments get royalty payments for the mine (that every mining operation has to pay).
I don't think the article is biased. I think it understates the situation.
A bit of a hostile takeover with respect to Denmark, but still good deal for greenlanders.
Somehow makes me think about this tweet from The White House yesterday: https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1162092856858808320
No guys, Americans can't go anywhere and you are not welcome everywhere. It's about time to understand that.
No, it would not. Based on the natural and strategic wealth they are sitting on, it would be an stupid idea extraordinary.