Greenland. China, Russia, USA, and Denmark

[futon]

Little press conference of Greenland and Denmark leaders.

Greenland wants to be its own country. US interests in Greenland is a good thing. 

 

[Mike1158]

I get the feeling there are some up there feathering a nest, obviously not in Greenlands best interests.

[Rick]

Why does Denmark still "have" Greenland?

[Yama]

Same reason USA still has Guam, Britain still has Bermuda and so on...

[Stefan Kotsch]

33 minutes ago, Rick said:

Why does Denmark still "have" Greenland?

Why shouldn't it be with Denmark anymore? For example, the  Queen Elizabeth of England  had already recognized Danish sovereignty over Greenland in 1583.

[Stuart Galbraith]

This is America's anti imperialism coming out. At exactly the same time as it plans to be Imperialist.

Does anyone ask why America has Hawaii or Guam? Same reason.

[Rick]

1 hour ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

Why shouldn't it be with Denmark anymore? For example, the  Queen Elizabeth of England  had already recognized Danish sovereignty over Greenland in 1583.

My understanding is that Greenland is a drain on the Danish treasury?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Puerto Rico is a drain on the US economy. But Is anyone talking about selling it to China?

[Yama]

5 minutes ago, Rick said:

My understanding is that Greenland is a drain on the Danish treasury?

Nearly all colonies are (and were).

[Rick]

2 minutes ago, Yama said:

Nearly all colonies are (and were).

Which, to my understanding, Denmark could use the money the send to Greenland for Danes. Or, maybe, even increase their defense spending. 

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, Rick said:

Which, to my understanding, Denmark could use the money the send to Greenland for Danes. Or, maybe, even increase their defense spending. 

States generally don't get rid of the territories just because they are unprofitable. 

How the Danes manage their finances is up to them. 

[Rick]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

States generally don't get rid of the territories just because they are unprofitable. 

How the Danes manage their finances is up to them. 

I agree. To me, it just doesn't make sense, especially as I don't think of Denmark as an economic powerhouse. 

[urbanoid]

4 minutes ago, Rick said:

I agree. To me, it just doesn't make sense, especially as I don't think of Denmark as an economic powerhouse. 

Maybe not a powerhouse per se due to the size of the population, but their economy is doing very well. Some of the highest living standards in the world, in top 10 in GDP per capita, one of the lowest debt to GDP rations in the West (around 30%), practically self-sufficient when it comes to energy (North Sea oil and gas), positive trade balance etc.

[sunday]

41 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

States generally don't get rid of the territories just because they are unprofitable.

Hong Kong appreciates the "generally" bit.

[urbanoid]

Just now, sunday said:

Hong Kong appreciates the "generally" bit.

I doubt if HK could have been unprofitable, it was returned after the lease ran out. Ok, technically the lease covered the New Territories only, but the development of the region since those were acquired made it so the two areas could only be functional together.

Unlike Taiwan, HK (or Macau) were not defensible and definitely not for UK alone. What was UK supposed to do? Take a heroic last stand for the principle?  

[sunday]

8 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

I doubt if HK could have been unprofitable, it was returned after the lease ran out. Ok, technically the lease covered the New Territories only, but the development of the region since those were acquired made it so the two areas could only be profitable together.

(...)

FIFY

[urbanoid]

It was basically a city-state somewhat functional as a whole, the way it was developed. 

Anyway, please answer the question, what was UK supposed to do? What were the alternatives? I'm sure that bashing perfidious Albion on every occasion might be a great pastime to engage in, but without proposing viable alternatives it's just bashing for the sake of it. Relocating 6,5 million people to UK wouldn't be particularly realistic, especially that they would have to abandon their properties, jobs etc. Neither would be opposing the PRC militarily, not in the geopolitical situation of the 1990s. Maaaybe if the US introduced sanctions after Tienanmen and went full anti-China, but there was too much money to be made from China's still very cheap labor. At this point there was a widespread belief that China will ultimately liberalize and 'be like everyone else'.

One could argue that without UK recognizing and establishing relations with the PRC very early on HK would have been long gone, as Mao would have just taken it. That he didn't was likely due to UK promising to return the whole area in due time when the lease was up, in the end thanks to that it was given back to PRC far more benevolent than it was under Mao.

[sunday]

Keep rationalizing the ethical failures of your loved, imaginary Western world, that one that left Poland on the lurch several times.

[urbanoid]

Without pointing out viable alternatives it becomes a Greta-level argumentation:

[sunday]

Whatever, you are not moving the goalposts while forgetting the cost of current immigration to the UK taxpayer, or simply stating that allowing the immigration of HK residents would have been impossible.

But the point is that some decolonization measures were, supposedly, taking because of economic reasons.

Edited January 11 by sunday

[Stuart Galbraith]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

I agree. To me, it just doesn't make sense, especially as I don't think of Denmark as an economic powerhouse. 

 

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

It was basically a city-state somewhat functional as a whole, the way it was developed. 

Anyway, please answer the question, what was UK supposed to do? What were the alternatives? I'm sure that bashing perfidious Albion on every occasion might be a great pastime to engage in, but without proposing viable alternatives it's just bashing for the sake of it. Relocating 6,5 million people to UK wouldn't be particularly realistic, especially that they would have to abandon their properties, jobs etc. Neither would be opposing the PRC militarily, not in the geopolitical situation of the 1990s. Maaaybe if the US introduced sanctions after Tienanmen and went full anti-China, but there was too much money to be made from China's still very cheap labor. At this point there was a widespread belief that China will ultimately liberalize and 'be like everyone else'.

One could argue that without UK recognizing and establishing relations with the PRC very early on HK would have been long gone, as Mao would have just taken it. That he didn't was likely due to UK promising to return the whole area in due time when the lease was up, in the end thanks to that it was given back to PRC far more benevolent than it was under Mao.

Dont feed the trolls Urbanoid. He neither knows, nor cares for the reasons, as long as he has a tin drum to beat.

[Stefan Kotsch]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

That he didn't was likely due to UK promising to return the whole area in due time when the lease was up, in the end thanks to that it was given back to PRC far more benevolent than it was under Mao.

By the way, this is very interesting compared to Putin's Russia. The Chinese kept the lease until the end and did not declare it retroactively invalid and then launch a special military operation. To save fellow Chinese citizens. After '8 years of oppression and bombing' or stuff like that.

[urbanoid]

34 minutes ago, sunday said:

Whatever, you are not moving the goalposts while forgetting the cost of current immigration to the UK taxpayer, or simply stating that allowing the immigration of HK residents would have been impossible.

But the point is that some decolonization measures were, supposedly, taking because of economic reasons.

True, today, but 1990s could have very well been a different era when it comes to the mass immigration to the West in general.

And yes, a lot of decolonization was done for economic reasons - many colonies were unprofitable even before the communists started dumping weapons for all the wannabe 'freedom fighters' there, which in turn made keeping even more expensive. And let's not even talk about the pressure from the US and they largely had Europe by the balls, as without them it could not really be defended from communism. I just don't think that specifically HK was dumped for economic reasons.

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

Anyway, please answer the question, what was UK supposed to do? What were the alternatives?

The UK had no realistic alternative in Hong Kong.  Sunday's question is whether the same situation applies to Denmark.  

Zelensky threatens Trump and the United States about Greenland and Canada after the 3:10 mark,

 

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, Stefan Kotsch said:

By the way, this is very interesting compared to Putin's Russia. The Chinese kept the lease until the end and did not declare it retroactively invalid and then launch a special military operation. To save fellow Chinese citizens. After '8 years of oppression and bombing' or stuff like that.

I doubt they would have kept the lease had UK not recognized PRC and established diplomatic relations with them, which they did pretty much immediately (1950 or so). In turn UK had committed to returning HK (all of it, as opposed to New Territories alone) when the lease was up and just kept their end of the bargain. I'd say that since they pretty much had to, returning it to Jiang Zemin's China as opposed to losing it to Mao's China was a far better deal as far as HKers are concerned, and it's not even close.