'Greenland Is Not For Sale And Never Will Be'

'Greenland is not for sale and never will be'

‘Greenland is not for sale. And it never will be.’

Aqqaluk Lynge and Gitte Seeberg at The New York Times

Greenlanders “aren’t interested in their country being sold or letting the fate of their nation be decided by others seeking profit or promoting their own narrow interests,” say Aqqaluk Lynge and Gitte Seeberg. They have “no desire to trade hundreds of years of Danish rule for American rule.” Greenlanders want to “chart the course of their country’s development, and have been doing just that since self-rule was established 16 years ago,” and “friends don’t threaten friends.”

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week’s Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

REDD+ deforestation reduction programs “offer communities like ours a path to mitigate climate change while channeling finance to support sustainable development in our communities,” say Nallice Afrakoma, Daniel Amponsah and Divine Odonko. The “forest provides us with essential resources, including food, a stable climate, and ensuring water availability” in Africa. Programs to “reduce deforestation offer a powerful tool to halt and reverse deforestation trends and secure a sustainable income for forest peoples.”

People “who voted for Trump are glad to see him make good on his promise to continue to strip federal agencies of excessive spending, particularly through an entity focused solely on foreign aid,” says Nicole Russell. The “taxpayer dollars that fund USAID are better suited to remain with the taxpayer.” Gutting “USAID might sound heinous, inhumane or just purely selfish.” But “billions of taxpayer dollars are going toward organizations around the world that are intentionally or unintentionally wasting it.”

A “U.S. homeland missile defense system is both technically possible and necessary to defend the country from 21st-century threats,” says Matthew Kroenig. The “current system is designed for ballistic missiles and not a wider range of 21st-century threats, which now includes conventional and nuclear-armed cruise and hypersonic missiles.” This “approach of simply leaving the U.S. homeland vulnerable to adversary strategic attack has not led to stability.” Washington “needs to take action to protect itself and to restore strategic deterrence.”

#Greenland #sale