I have not commented on President Trump’s reported interest in having the United States purchase Greenland, which is currently a part of Denmark, but I had actually thought it was a rare example of outside of the box thinking by our otherwise third-rate President. However, Professor Stacie Goddard may not agree with me, as she writes on WaPo’s Monkey Cage:
Trump’s musings over Greenland are part of his larger tendency to see territory as a tradable commodity, particularly in dealing with the Middle East. During the 2016 Republican presidential primary debates, candidate Marco Rubio chastised candidate Trump for treating Palestinian aspirations for statehood as a “real estate deal.”Jared Kushner’s plan for Middle East peace relies on territorial exchanges between the Palestinians, Jordan and Egypt. Trump’s March tweet recognizing Israel’s control over the Golan paid little attention to the symbolic claims at stake.
This is a dangerous approach to territorial conflict. As recent events in Kashmir make clear, nations are still prepared to shed blood and treasure to secure national claims. Understanding the symbolic value of territory is key to managing this and any future territorial disputes.
In other words, Trump’s real estate approach to Greenland may be the tip of the melting iceberg.
I’m a little concerned over her statement because context matters, and when it comes to nationalism and territorial matters, context is a big deal. What, for example, if Greenland was part of Belgium, would the Greenlanders consider themselves Walloons or Flemish, and would they feel so deeply linked to a non-homogenuous country? What if, say, Russia had retained the Ukraine after the Soviet Union breakup – would the ties that bind be made of metal or dissolving silk?
I fear there may be a certain amount of unwarranted generalization occurring in Professor Goddard’s thinking in a world where context and specificity overwhelms the abstract rules that people searching for explanations would like to find. Speaking as a software engineer, I love those rules spawned by generalization, too – but I know sometimes generalizations are hideously false.
