Assuming I had the very unlikely opportunity to do so, I would have mentioned the words of the title to ‘Donald Trump’ – very politely, of course – in the face of the threats he was voicing, right up until the evening of Wednesday January 21 2025. He had U-turned a number of times before, especially on the issue of economic sanctions, mainly tariff imposition. Also, he didn’t disappoint this time either, on that rather special Wednesday evening.
It did of course remind us of the lurking nightmare for every journalist. Except it isn’t a nightmare in this case, nor even a daymare (except there’s no such thing). The ‘nightmare’ is that you write something, probably with some hyped-up narrative to capture the heat of the moment, submit it to the journal in time for the printing process and find that the political landscape changes between that moment and the following day when the newspaper is published.
Right up until Wednesday evening, Trump was threatening his fellow members of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) who are mainly the big European nations, with the imposition of tariffs unless the Danes and Greenlanders handed over ownership of Greenland. If the imposition of tariffs didn’t work, prowling in the background, though not explicitly threatened, was a more forceful takeover of that island. So, up until that point, many were very worried because a rift in the 80-year-old life of the great NATO partnership between the USA and the main European countries had been unimaginable but now looking increasingly likely.
Then, with my article already submitted, the president of the USA did his famous Trump U-turn. He was not of course aware of what I had written although had he let me know (lol) what he was going to do, then I would have made significant changes to my article. Never mind, that’s a journalistic risk to be borne bravely as you give the impression of being out of date with your opinions.
It’s time now to reflect on the U-turn itself, and its role in international politics. The negative aspect of such a substantial change in political direction by these U-turns is the suggestion that the instigator/perpetrator makes a decision then fails to stick to it, rr they simply can’t make up their mind. Or they say something without thinking, then change their mind at a later time. Or they simply get it wrong and have to correct the public statement accordingly.
Let’s turn the coin over to the other side. There’s the clever political technique where you open up with both barrels (so to speak) in voicing the threat and everyone worries about it. Then you back off; which can be quite dramatic and extremely effective. Especially where you are the big boy on the block and everyone breathes a huge sigh of relief; followed by some lively back-slapping and everyone gets down to some sensible discussion. No one in their right mind would want to fall out with the USA.
Well, the U-turn did actually happen and to a conciliatory welcome. I would humbly suggest that was his tactic but with a slight modification. I think Trump felt justified in threatening the tariff increases, and personally believed in the fairly outrageous claims of USA’s entitlement to ownership of Greenland. Furthermore, he was quite happy to let it roll for a while and then perhaps got some good advice from those he trusted, to use the glamorous stage of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to announce the U-turn. Without actually calling it that, of course. He got some credit for it. Not least because Europe needs the USA for many things, including support for Ukraine, a country now suffering more than ever. No fewer than 600 000 residents in that country have left their homes in the vicious cold of winter because Russia has knocked out so many power stations.
So what next? On ‘U-turn Day,’ Trump and his team sat with the Danes and Greenlanders and what’s on the table now is an agreement for NATO to increase its presence in the Arctic, with the USA given exclusive occupation rights in certain areas within Greenland. That carries the right, with Greenland’s approval, to exploit the mineral wealth beneath the ground. Greenland has committed to exclude similar agreements with competing powers; which would clearly be Russia and China. This might sound excessive, but it will never be forgotten that the USA protected Greenland in World War 2 and already has a substantial military presence and early warning system in place on the island.
Some will argue that the USA’s interest in Greenland is a ‘Cash Grab’to access the high value earth minerals. It is a well-justified supply chain initiative regarding precious minerals and their general availability.
Leave a comment