Tweet

January 9, 2025

Thanks to President-elect Donald Trump, there is lots of talk about Greenland joining the United States. One way or another Greenland will join the United States and will become as important as Alaska or Texas is to the future prosperity and national security of the United States. Public Advocate agrees with Prof. Clifford Thies in equating Panama Canal in the same boat, " says Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate.

Professor Clifford Thies is an expert Trumpist and for 50 years has produced 1000s of insightful international economic and political commentary about every part of the world.

CLIFFORD THIES BLUNTLY WRITES:

It's been a while since we admitted a state; and the two we admitted around 1960 had been acquired as territories about 100 year prior to that.

We have interests in Greenland and the Panama Canal, esp. because the current owners are relatively small.

Denmark sold us the Danish Virgin Islands when Woodrow WIlson was president and - would you believe - offered to sell us Greenland. But, I imagine, WIlliam Jennings Bryan didn't want to be tagged with "Bryan's folly:, the way Lincoln's Secretary of State got tagged with "Seward's Folly" for acquiring Alaska.

During WWII, the U.S. occupied Greenland to prevent that place from falling to Nazi Germany after Nazi Germany conquered Denmark.

U.S. forces established bases in Greenland during the Cold War. The U.S. and Denmark were, after all, both members of NATO. We offered Denmark $100 million for the island, thinking it worthless to Denmark and strategically important to us. But, gosh, Denmark wouldn't be such a great country without that big, giant island.

More recently, Greenland has become something of a speculation in natural resources. It is thought there are trillions of dollars in resources under the Greenland glacier. The tiny Inuit population of Greenland thinks they're all billionaires. While waiting for their billions, they largely subsist on welfare payments from Denmark. Such is the thinking of welfare recipients. Sucking on the tit of government until their proverbial ship comes itn. A few years ago, a center-right government offered them independence WITHOUT the subsidies. They said hell no. We want independence with continued subsidies.

I can't speak for Trump, but the U.S. has options Denmark simply does not have.

Given our enormous size and interest in defending navigation of the high seas, we could open permanent military stations on the island and develop a local population loyal to the U.S. We could also support a permanent scientific expedition, fisheries, and federal penal colonies. In such a manner, we could develop a local population that is majority American.

Conversely, we could eliminate subsidies and otherwise encourage Inuits to relocate to the mainland; thus, tilting the balance of the local population toward the U.S.

Greenland could then become an incorporated territory of the U.S., like Guam.

If ever it became possible to develop the vast resources under the Greenland glacier, we could do it, or license private-sector companies to do it.

Considering that we could cut Denmark into a share of any profit from these resources; let's say, for the next forty years, we should be able to buy the island for a reasonable amount of cash.

As for the Panama Canal, it's currently f*cked up. The wait to go through the canal is approximately the time to go around Cape Horn. The reason the wait is so long is the limited fresh water availability needed to raise and lower ships going through the locks.

There are two potential solutions: (1) use salt water, piping it up from either the Pacific Ocean or the Caribbean, or (2) "re-cycle" the fresh water, capturing it before it spills out of the last segment of the canal and piping it back up. Both possibilities require pumping stations, which ships using the canal would have to cover in their transit fee. The use of salt water poses additional problems because salt water is corrosive. Ocean-going ships are built to deal with salt water, but the infrastructure of the canal isn't. So, I think option (2) (re-cycling fresh water) is the way to go.

But, is Panama up to it? Probably not. And, do we want further entanglement by China in the canal? No. Not that either. Perhaps a joint U.S.-Panama corporation, with Panama getting a share of the profits.

Bottom line, if you look at these things as business deals, instead of as political questions, there may be solutions,

Thies writes.

CLIFFORD F. THIES
Eldon R. Lindsey Chair of Free Enterprise
Professor of Economics and Finance
Shenandoah University