美国购买格林兰岛的历史缘由和合法性
粉红五毛不要看 帝国主义伤人心
In 1946, the United States made a formal offer to purchase Greenland from Denmark for $100 million in gold. This proposal emerged after World War II when the U.S. had taken responsibility for Greenland's defense during the war, establishing military bases on the island.
U.S. officials viewed Greenland as vital for national security, especially with the onset of the Cold War. They believed controlling Greenland would provide significant military advantages.
In 2019, Denmark, which holds sovereignty over Greenland, deemed the president’s idea ridiculous. In the U.S., critics lambasted his project as megalomaniacal or un-American.
But the idea isn’t outlandish or unique to President Trump. Politicians from all parties have negotiated such deals throughout U.S. history. Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase and then flirted with buying Cuba. As secretary of state, John Quincy Adams arranged debt relief for Spain in exchange for Florida. Secretary of State William Seward acquired Alaska. What Mr. Trump proposes is consistent with this American tradition—and with our current borders. Sovereignty purchases are responsible for more than 40% of U.S. land.
Further, this practice has had international approval. When Spain, France, Mexico and Russia sold to America the lands that now make up a large portion of our country, they recognized the legitimacy of such transactions.
Purchasing sovereignty has been an accepted custom of international law for centuries. The unification of Germany in the 19th century involved real-estate transactions in which states mixed sovereignty, property and money. In 1898, Imperial Germany leased sovereignty over Qingdao, a settlement on China’s Shandong Peninsula. Later that year, the U.K. leased from China sovereignty over a piece of land further south, in Kowloon. That land became a crucial part of a now-familiar trade hub: Hong Kong.
Though Danish leaders today imply that the idea of selling sovereignty is out of touch with their national values, the country has a long history of doing just that. In 1845, the king of Denmark accepted millions of rupees from the East India Co. to transfer control over multiple Danish hubs in India. In the early 1900s, Denmark’s leadership, despairing over the loss of Schleswig-Holstein to Bismarck’s Prussia, floated a possible sale of Greenland to the U.S. The U.S. didn’t agree but in January 1917 paid $25 million to Denmark for another remote Danish possession of strategic importance—now the U.S. Virgin Islands.
In 1946, the United States made a formal offer to purchase Greenland from Denmark for $100 million in gold. This proposal emerged after World War II when the U.S. had taken responsibility for Greenland's defense during the war, establishing military bases on the island.
U.S. officials viewed Greenland as vital for national security, especially with the onset of the Cold War. They believed controlling Greenland would provide significant military advantages.
In 2019, Denmark, which holds sovereignty over Greenland, deemed the president’s idea ridiculous. In the U.S., critics lambasted his project as megalomaniacal or un-American.
But the idea isn’t outlandish or unique to President Trump. Politicians from all parties have negotiated such deals throughout U.S. history. Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase and then flirted with buying Cuba. As secretary of state, John Quincy Adams arranged debt relief for Spain in exchange for Florida. Secretary of State William Seward acquired Alaska. What Mr. Trump proposes is consistent with this American tradition—and with our current borders. Sovereignty purchases are responsible for more than 40% of U.S. land.
Further, this practice has had international approval. When Spain, France, Mexico and Russia sold to America the lands that now make up a large portion of our country, they recognized the legitimacy of such transactions.
Purchasing sovereignty has been an accepted custom of international law for centuries. The unification of Germany in the 19th century involved real-estate transactions in which states mixed sovereignty, property and money. In 1898, Imperial Germany leased sovereignty over Qingdao, a settlement on China’s Shandong Peninsula. Later that year, the U.K. leased from China sovereignty over a piece of land further south, in Kowloon. That land became a crucial part of a now-familiar trade hub: Hong Kong.
Though Danish leaders today imply that the idea of selling sovereignty is out of touch with their national values, the country has a long history of doing just that. In 1845, the king of Denmark accepted millions of rupees from the East India Co. to transfer control over multiple Danish hubs in India. In the early 1900s, Denmark’s leadership, despairing over the loss of Schleswig-Holstein to Bismarck’s Prussia, floated a possible sale of Greenland to the U.S. The U.S. didn’t agree but in January 1917 paid $25 million to Denmark for another remote Danish possession of strategic importance—now the U.S. Virgin Islands.
25 个评论
>> 说实话，一个地方从母国独立出去，如果只要51%的当地人同意就行，那加拿大的魁北克，西班牙的加泰...
那就看国家给出什么要利益了，给高了其它 地方人不愿意，会说早点滚。给少了留 不住 ，这正是公平契约的精神。
考虑这东西没意义，如果你担心 什么自由独立，会带来混乱。那女人根本就不应该可以出门，虽然从权利上说是，但是女人一出门，就会带来社会秩序的混乱，家族血统的混乱。所以为了秩序，还是禁止女人出门吧。、
如果为了防止潜在的“混乱”就剥夺人们的选择权，那人类社会将永远停留在奴隶制或极权体制下，民主也别搞了。
另外如果不允许人家自由独立，结果是什么？ 那才是真正的混乱，因为人家会发动独立战争。