I don't think the average person realises just how heavily interested and involved the US has been in Greenland since World War II, and in a perverse way we should probably be grateful to Donald Trump for suddenly drawing our attention to that long-overlooked part of the world. US strategic investment in Greenland in the Cold War period and afterwards has been quite extraordinary - not many people would know, for instance, that the logistics that went into constructing the US military base in northern Greenland have been compared to those used to build the Panama Canal.
You're quite right, by the way, to wonder about the day when the great powers start to take a greater interest in the Antarctic - and about New Zealand's geographical proximity to that future focus of great power interest.
Another pragmatic, unemotional post thanks Grant. Well worth reading. The USA are the least of our dangers: both China and Russia are belligerent. China more subtle/subversive; Russia bludgeoning.
You ask (rhetorically) why stop at Greenland, the US didn't. The US didn't 'buy' the Kingdom of Hawaii, she pinched (sorry, annexed) it and the islands became a territory for 60 years from 1898 then a US state in 1959, to satisfy the sugar barons. Same year as Alaska. Clinton did apologise to the Hawaiian people when he was President. My point is for centuries major powers have "pinched every bodies' land", to quote The Castle: Mongolia, England, France, Spain, Russia, China, Japan. That's why Aotearoa has the stupid name of New Zealand, though I guess it's marginally better than Nieuw Zeeland. Trump's not the first to announce he's an imperialist and he won't be the last.
Thanks Grant. Useful post. While NZ is very much small potatoes in the turbulent nature of global politics, we need this sort of informed analysis if we are to negotiate the international arena in our own best interests. It far from clear what 2025 will bring. It seems the only thing we can be sure of is that we can't be absolutely sure of anything. It is not just that Trump prides himself on his unpredictability, but politicians seldom realistically anticipate the actual consequences of their actions. Putin did not set out to become embroiled in a costly, brutal war in Ukraine, it is unlikely Hamas anticipated the ferocity of Israel's response and while many British were keen to curb the bureaucracy of the EU, Brexit has definitely not delivered what they expected.
In practice, what passes for Trump's idea of Pax Americana probably won't be directed outwards, but inwards. Instead of annexing Greenland & Panama, think Project 2025.
Project 2025 says "the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economic ties between the U.S. and Greenland." (P. 190). Actually quite reasonable!
I don't think the average person realises just how heavily interested and involved the US has been in Greenland since World War II, and in a perverse way we should probably be grateful to Donald Trump for suddenly drawing our attention to that long-overlooked part of the world. US strategic investment in Greenland in the Cold War period and afterwards has been quite extraordinary - not many people would know, for instance, that the logistics that went into constructing the US military base in northern Greenland have been compared to those used to build the Panama Canal.
You're quite right, by the way, to wonder about the day when the great powers start to take a greater interest in the Antarctic - and about New Zealand's geographical proximity to that future focus of great power interest.
Another pragmatic, unemotional post thanks Grant. Well worth reading. The USA are the least of our dangers: both China and Russia are belligerent. China more subtle/subversive; Russia bludgeoning.
Yep, despite the bluster over Greenland, Panama & Canada, America is most likely to pose a major threat... to itself.
The Americans are doing a good job of that already. Just look at Bannon's attack on Musk.
How long do we give it before this happens?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GgSWdfCa4AA0oNn?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
It's started. I reckon Musk gets the boot, but buys TikTok.
If Mr Beast doesn't beat him to it...
https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/21/business/mr-beast-buy-tiktok-ceo/index.html
The best account I have read of the great game as it is being, or may be, played in the twenty-first century.
You ask (rhetorically) why stop at Greenland, the US didn't. The US didn't 'buy' the Kingdom of Hawaii, she pinched (sorry, annexed) it and the islands became a territory for 60 years from 1898 then a US state in 1959, to satisfy the sugar barons. Same year as Alaska. Clinton did apologise to the Hawaiian people when he was President. My point is for centuries major powers have "pinched every bodies' land", to quote The Castle: Mongolia, England, France, Spain, Russia, China, Japan. That's why Aotearoa has the stupid name of New Zealand, though I guess it's marginally better than Nieuw Zeeland. Trump's not the first to announce he's an imperialist and he won't be the last.
Bother. I just find this erudite commentary and now you're pausing to write a book proposal. Look forward to your return and good luck with the book.
Thanks Grant. Useful post. While NZ is very much small potatoes in the turbulent nature of global politics, we need this sort of informed analysis if we are to negotiate the international arena in our own best interests. It far from clear what 2025 will bring. It seems the only thing we can be sure of is that we can't be absolutely sure of anything. It is not just that Trump prides himself on his unpredictability, but politicians seldom realistically anticipate the actual consequences of their actions. Putin did not set out to become embroiled in a costly, brutal war in Ukraine, it is unlikely Hamas anticipated the ferocity of Israel's response and while many British were keen to curb the bureaucracy of the EU, Brexit has definitely not delivered what they expected.
Great points, thanks Mark! The law of unintended consequences...
In practice, what passes for Trump's idea of Pax Americana probably won't be directed outwards, but inwards. Instead of annexing Greenland & Panama, think Project 2025.
Project 2025 says "the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economic ties between the U.S. and Greenland." (P. 190). Actually quite reasonable!