Denmark blasts ‘unacceptable' pressure from Trump over Greenland
President Donald Trump has expressed interest in the United States acquiring the strategically important, mineral-rich Arctic island for national and international security reasons, even suggesting the potential use of force.
Frederiksen, in a National Day speech, stated, "The world order we've built through generations is being challenged like never before."
She added, "In recent months Greenland and Denmark have been subjected to unacceptable pressure from our closest ally," alluding to the United States.
US Vice President JD Vance visited the island in March, criticising Denmark, a fellow NATO member, for its handling of Greenland's safety. Vance proposed that the United States could provide better protection for the territory.
Vance's visit occurred after the Demokraatit party's election victory in Greenland. The party advocates for a gradual approach to independence, differing from other parties that propose a more rapid departure.
Leaders of Denmark and Greenland have said only Greenlanders can decide the territory's future, and the Danish constitution gives the island the right to seek independence.
Fundamental principles in the transatlantic relationship such as national sovereignty, the respect for borders and people's right to self-determination are now at stake, Frederiksen said.
"But we don't bend. We Danes are not like that," she added.
Denmark's King Frederik, who is popular in Greenland, visited the island in late April in a show of unity amid the diplomatic stand-off with Trump.
A 1951 agreement between the United States and Denmark gives the US the right to construct military bases in Greenland as long as Denmark and Greenland are notified.
The island, whose capital Nuuk is closer to New York than Copenhagen, boasts mineral, oil and natural gas wealth, but development has been slow and the mining sector has seen very limited US investment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
New MI6 head traced back to Cheltenham's unofficial spy school
Little is known about Blaise Metreweli, the new head of MI6, but information has appeared on WhatsApp, generated by old girls of Cheltenham Ladies College. A well known breeding ground for spies, it now appears that this 'Eton for girls' educated Metreweli until sixth form. She was 'very popular and good at everything', which is perhaps why she was marked for espionage. In 2009, Jonathan Evans, then MI5 director-general, said the school was 'deliberately targeted' for recruitment, which the writer and alumna Kate Johnson put down to the skills girls acquired in dormitories, such as those in interrogation and mental disintegration. 'The fourth form forced us to explain the facts of life,' she said. 'The girl after me knew nothing; when they explained to her, she burst into tears, sobbing, 'My mum and dad would never do that!' ' Although he is on the other side of the Atlantic, Peter Mandelson cannot escape Labour's travails. The former Svengali of the left, who is now our man in DC, was recently summoned by JD Vance, the vice-president, who, reportedly, had one question. 'What's going on with Reform?' he asked. 'I see that they're doing very well.' Given that Vance hopes to be president before the next UK general election, he may well be trying to get the lowdown on his future British partners. Reform have remarked that the VP is 'impeccably well-informed about British politics', but this would be a recent shift. It's but weeks since Vance referred to the UK as 'some random country'. When her career in politics is over, the Labour MP Dawn Butler could become the star of a cop show. In a debate about mobile phone theft, she told the Commons how police apathy had driven her to vigilantism. Using the tracker on her stolen phone, she and a companion followed the crooks in a car. 'In true Starsky & Hutch style, we chased down the thieves,' she said. She called the police again and the culprits were caught, but they hadn't noticed their stalkers thanks to Butler's quick thinking. 'We pretended to kiss as they walked towards us,' she explained. That's how to clinch victory. As another weekend dawns, MPs will be attending fetes and surgeries and all manner of local affairs, which leaves very little time for relaxation. Rachel Johnson, who is a sibling of two former MPs and the daughter of a former MEP, has been asked for ideas on how politicians could let their hair down. 'A lot of tennis, probably a lot of drinking,' she said. 'And probably having a lot of childcare in my brother's case. At least one nanny per child is my recommendation.' Not even Boris's present paymasters could afford that. By his own admission, the career of Pulp's frontman, Jarvis Cocker, peaked on Friday when he read the centenary Shipping Forecast. He follows in a fine tradition of guest presenters, including Alan Bennett and Stephen Fry, but they did mock-ups or old versions of the real forecast. Only one celebrity was allowed to read the actual one but, as the former deputy PM John Prescott had served in the merchant navy, he had at least a sliver of qualification. It was the only broadcast where one of the regions was called 'umber.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
A year of Keir: It has ended in tears, but here's why he might be doing better than you think
Keir Starmer's first anniversary as prime minister arrives at a very bad moment. He will not be remembered for what he achieved in the past 12 months, but will be overshadowed by a humiliating double U-turn over £5bn of cuts to disability benefits which wiped out any savings from the reforms. It severely dented his authority and left him looking not in control of his rebellious MPs. In a week when he hoped to talk up the government's achievements, Starmer had to try to stabilise the financial markets after Rachel Reeves shed tears sitting next to him at Prime Minister's Questions. Although the chancellor insisted this was due to a 'personal matter,' Starmer's initial failure to guarantee she would stay in her job until the next general election sparked a wobble in the markets. Later he made clear she would remain in her post 'for many years to come' but that did not quell speculation at Westminster that she would not. The anniversary will also be remembered for Starmer's unusually frank admission of his mistakes. He took full responsibility for last week's welfare climbdown, admitting he had been distracted by the G7 and Nato summits. He regretted his controversial speech on immigration in which he unintentionally aped Enoch Powell by saying the UK risks becoming 'an island of strangers'. Remarkably, I'm told Starmer's mea culpa was his own work and not discussed with his closest advisers. This is rare for such an important intervention. All prime ministers need a sounding board; perhaps Starmer lacks one. Some allies insist his two admissions are a refreshing change from the macho politics shaped by Margaret Thatcher's 'there is no alternative' mantra, saying it showed a human side his critics often accuse the seemingly dull, technocratic PM of not displaying. (He and his family were distressed on the day of the immigration speech because his former family home in Kentish Town, London, had just been firebombed). But other Starmer allies were shocked and appalled by his move. 'Insane,' one told me. 'With zero charisma, the one thing he is supposed to be is competent. He admits he didn't read his immigration speech properly before making it. How competent is that?' Downing Street's plan was for the anniversary to mark a change of gear: the government's first year was about 'clearing up the mess' left behind by the Conservatives. Year two is supposed to begin the 'renewal of Britain' and for the public to start to see the difference Labour rule makes. However, the volte-face over welfare was Starmer's third U-turn in a month: he also diluted the ill-fated decision to means-test the pensioners' winter fuel allowance and accepted a national inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal. The U-turns reinforced the image of a prime minister not in control of events. But they were better than ploughing on and making a political problem even worse. Aides make a virtue of Starmer's pragmatism. As one puts it: 'If plan A doesn't work, he will try something else until it does. He is a problem solver. He learns from his mistakes, and is a quick learner.' Critics dispute the latter point, saying No 10 was painfully slow in spotting and ending the row over 'freebies' for Starmer and his ministers. Starmer's U-turns are not the whole story of his first year in office. The bad headlines they inevitably attracted epitomise how a relatively small number of damaging events can drown out real achievements. The media's maxim that bad news trumps good could also have been written for Starmer's government. Even Starmer's critics acknowledge his strong performance on foreign affairs. The most difficult in-tray of any MP since the end of the Second World War has dominated his first 12 months in Downing Street more than he could have expected. Foreign diplomats say Starmer's serious, grown-up approach has mended fences after the instability of the Tory years, especially with EU countries. The PM has confounded critics who warned that hugging Donald Trump close would not work. Starmer aides are adamant the US president did not sideline him over the bombing of Iran, despite appearances to the contrary. The UK secured the best deal of any country on US tariffs, as well as trade agreements with India and the EU. However, there are few votes in foreign affairs and Labour strategists believe the government's fate will be decided on three domestic issues – the economy/living standards, public services and immigration. True, mistakes have been made on the economy. On taking office, Labour was too obsessed with a revenge mission: in 2010, David Cameron and his chancellor George Osborne pinned the blame for the coalition government's austerity measures on the previous Labour government's overspending. Even though the real cause was the global financial crisis, the public bought it and Labour's economic credentials did not recover until Starmer became leader. So Reeves was determined to blame Labour's admittedly rotten fiscal inheritance on the Tories. In doing so, ministers now admit they overdid the gloom, suppressing business and consumer confidence and destroying the optimism and hope that normally greets a new government. Even after Labour's 'loveless landslide', the party should have been able to capitalise on many voters' relief at kicking the Tories out. Reeves's decision on winter fuel, announced three weeks after the election, was designed to show the financial markets that Labour could make 'tough decisions'. But it was very unpopular and became emblematic; voters judged it odd that this was the first thing Labour did. The long gap between the announcement and the chancellor's first Budget in October prolonged Labour's agony. Its honeymoon, always likely to be short, became even shorter. Although the economy grew by 0.7 per cent in the first three months of this year, Reeves's hope that this meant things were 'turning a corner' may prove to have been premature. Most experts have downgraded their growth forecasts for this year. Job and investment prospects were not helped by her £25bn hike in employers' national insurance contributions. Starmer might now find it hard to move Reeves from the Treasury; the markets wobbled on Wednesday because they feared a more left-leaning chancellor would change her fiscal rules to allow higher borrowing. The prime minister and chancellor now face a nightmarish dilemma as they work out how to fill a black hole estimated at between £20bn and £40bn in the Budget this autumn (including the £5bn of lost welfare savings). The markets don't want increased borrowing. Labour MPs clearly don't want spending cuts. The only other avenue – tax rises – is inevitable, but the options are limited by Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance for employees, or VAT. While plenty of good things have been done, Labour has often not received much credit – partly because it has not always shouted them from the rooftops. The national minimum wage was raised by 6.7 per cent, boosting the wages of a full-time worker by £1,400 a year. Renters' rights have been enhanced through legislation, including a ban on no-fault evictions. State-funded childcare will increase this autumn, when the first 300 school-based nurseries will open. Half a million more children will be eligible for free school meals from September next year. Reeves's fiscal rules will allow £113bn of investment in building projects. Other pro-growth measures include setting up GB Energy to invest in renewables and a national wealth fund to stimulate private capital. When the history books are written, perhaps the most significant change will prove to have been the new planning rules designed to allow more housebuilding. The target of 1.5 million homes in five years will be hard to hit, but Labour deserves credit for trying. The symbol of public services is the NHS, and in last month's spending review, the government prioritised it with a £29bn-a-year injection. With defence also getting a boost, other departments were squeezed by Reeves's fiscal rule to balance income and spending by 2029-30. 'We have placed a big bet on the NHS,' one Labour MP said. 'We've got to pray it works.' There are some small rays of hope for Labour. It has provided for 4 million more NHS appointments, and waiting lists have fallen by 5 per cent since their September 2023 peak, to 7.39 million. The number of people who think public services are in a bad state has dropped from 68 per cent in October to 55 per cent, according to More in Common. 'Delivery' is seen by Labour strategists as the best way to combat the growing threat from Reform UK. After appearing to ape Nigel Farage's party, Starmer now wants to go head-to-head against him at the next election. 'We have to be the progressives, fighting against the populists of Reform,' he told The Observer. But the government has not yet delivered in one area Nigel Farage is well placed to exploit – illegal migration. The small boats crisis that bedevilled the previous government now haunts Labour, with crossings at a record high. 'It's very visible; we need to do better,' one loyalist MP said. Starmer hopes closer cooperation with France will soon pay dividends. He will need it to. Can Starmer turn things round? After the shambles over welfare and his surprising mea culpa, even some natural allies are starting to doubt it. 'I'm no longer sure he has it in him,' one told me. To succeed, Starmer knows he has to deliver what he promised the country – change – and replicate his success on the international stage in the domestic arena. But his friends play down the idea of a 'big bang' reset or a single big idea. Tom Baldwin, his biographer, told me: 'The classic Starmer way to do this is not with cymbals crashing and a grand vision, but getting on with the job and doing more things in better ways.' I think Starmer will need a stronger team in Downing Street, with more experienced heavy hitters like Jonathan Powell, an undoubted success as his national security adviser. A long-promised economics adviser is required to keep a closer eye on the error-prone Reeves than Starmer has been able or willing to do. A beefed-up policy team is seen by some insiders as necessary. Some think the PM needs more advisers willing to 'speak truth to power' and tell him when the government makes mistakes – or better still, before it makes them. They say he is too reluctant to sack long-time aides who share his worldview. Morgan McSweeney, the chief of staff, has become a lightning rod for criticism of Starmer himself, as he knew he would when the going got tough. 'Part of his job is to be a human shield,' one friend said. McSweeney is in a powerful position. He was the architect of last year's landslide and, as one insider put it: 'Unusually, he chose Starmer to front his campaign to take back the party from the left's control, rather than Starmer choosing him.' Labour figures find it hard to imagine the PM without his longstanding consigliere. But McSweeney might walk out, or a plan mooted this spring for him to return to being a campaign strategist might be revived. McSweeney's detractors concede he has improved the No 10 operation after taking over from the former civil servant Sue Gray, who was forced out only three months after the election. She is blamed for Labour's uncertain start. 'We had a plan to win the election but no plan for government,' one minister admitted. But Gray did ensure that Starmer talked to his ministers and MPs and reached out beyond his trusted advisers; a failure to do that contributed to the welfare rebellion. The PM needs to rebuild relations with his unhappy backbenchers. In mishandling the welfare issue, he blew up his strategy of marginalising the 35 Corbynista MPs, who joined forces with the much bigger soft left contingent to defeat the cuts. Some soft left rebels now want to rally behind Starmer to unite a divided party – but, having tasted power, others will want to wield it in future. Starmer has acknowledged the need for a coherent narrative that sets out what his government is about. 'We haven't always told our story as well as we should,' he told Sky News on the margins of the G7 summit. Although he recoils from 'performative politics', it is his duty to become a better communicator. 'He needs a project, a plan,' one adviser told me. 'He has to learn you can't govern without an agenda. He now needs to pin down what he believes in, what he wants his legacy to be, and what he fights the next election on.' After the welfare debacle, Starmer's government ends its first year looking battered and bruised. It feels much older than 12 months. Labour trails Reform by five points in the opinion polls and has had the worst start of a newly elected government in history. With Starmer's personal ratings dire, it is no longer unthinkable that his party decides he is not the right leader for the next election. The unhappy anniversary week has fuelled such chatter among Labour MPs. His internal critics will look for progress by what will be difficult elections for Labour next May, for the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and local authorities, including in London. But, unlike the Tories, Labour doesn't do regicide, and we are not there yet. Starmer has a ruthless streak, and opponents underestimate him at their peril. 'I am hugely competitive – whether it's on the football pitch, whether it's in politics or any other aspect of life,' he told the BBC this week. The PM has been here before: he also had a bad first year as Labour leader. He believes people were wrong to write him off after Labour lost the 2021 Hartlepool by-election, and that they are wrong today. In 2021, he shook up his team, fought back, and against the odds won a landslide. In his next fightback, Starmer again intends to do whatever it takes. But don't expect a fireworks display. He will do it his way.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Ominous civil war warning as expert predicts exact date the US will split
California could secede from the US, sparking a second Civil War within the next 10 years, a political expert has revealed. Professor Benjamin Cohen from the University of California-Santa Barbara warned that the possibility of political polarization reaching a violent breaking point throughout the US was 'substantially greater than zero.' In one scenario, the political economist and author of 20 books envisioned California declaring its independence from the US in 2035, amid growing friction with the federal government - prompting the next president to take drastic action. 'President [JD] Vance has threatened a military takeover of state government in Sacramento, backed by National Guard troops from nearby red states. Armed conflict looks increasingly possible,' Cohen wrote in a fictitious news bulletin about his hypothetical scenario. Although states seceding may seem like an impossible probability to many, Cohen explained that there is a growing movement in so-called 'dream states' to rally behind the causes some feel they belong to, rather than remain part of the greater US family. 'Identity can be a very powerful motivator,' the professor said. 'That's why I worry about the risk of civil war. When it comes to something as strong as a sense of community identity, rationalism falls by the wayside.' A recent YouGov poll found that Cohen's fears are shared by many Americans, with 40 percent believing that it's either 'somewhat or very likely' the US will have another civil war within 10 years. The same percentage believed that war would be fought between Democrats and Republicans, not between individual states. Professor Benjamin Cohen predicted that states could start breaking away from the US by the year 2035 given the country's political polarization 'It's difficult for me to imagine how things would divide up if there were a civil war,' Cohen said in a university release. 'But the probability of such a war is substantially greater than zero.' He added that the possibility of states deciding to secede from the US was an 'underappreciated phenomenon.' Seceding from the US essentially means a state or group of states would be deciding to leave the country to form an independent nation. This would mean they're rejecting the authority of the US Constitution, federal laws, and the federal government, setting up a new government and handling things like taxes, defense, and trade on their own. The threat of a civil war emerges because the US Supreme Court has already ruled that it is illegal for states to secede without the consent of all other states in the union. Just like in Cohen's nightmare scenario, the federal government would likely declare the action illegal and take measures to stop it. However, studies continue to find more and more Americans believe that the government is reaching a critical breaking point and may even stop functioning as a democracy within a decade. The June 30 YouGov poll of 1,111 adult US citizens revealed that 31 percent think America will become a fascist dictatorship by 2035. Another 20 percent think the US will turn communist by then. 'It seems to me we cannot ignore the risks of the current fissures and fragmentation — the breakdown of a sense of community,' Cohen added. Despite predicting that California as a whole would be the first state break away from the US, the specialist in international political economy said that dissatisfied Americans desire to redraw the geographic borders of the US to better fit their political ideologies. For example, while New York City has heavily leaned Democratic for years, the rest of New York State has actually favored Republicans. In Cohen's new book, Dream States: A Lurking Nightmare for the World Order, the professor warned of an impending breakdown in society that could literally split states in half. 'We tend to simplify geography by looking exclusively at the existing lines on a map that separate one sovereign state from another,' the author explained. 'The reality is there are many people within those states that are very unhappy with the arrangement. They'd prefer to draw the lines in a different way. In some cases, they're prepared to fight to redraw those lines,' he warned. In California, that battle has seemingly already began, with riots in Los Angeles over the federal government's mass deportation of illegal immigrants. President Trump warned that California Governor Gavin Newsom's actions during the crisis in Los Angeles was taking the country closer to a civil war. The president said he would support arresting Newsom and called the rioters in Los Angeles 'insurrectionists.' 'I would do it,' the president said on June 9 when asked about Newsom daring his administration to arrest him. 'He's a nice guy but he's grossly incompetent, everybody knows it,' the president added. 'I don't want a Civil War. Civil War would happen if you left it to people like him.' An appeals court has allowed the White House to keep control of National Guard troops Trump deployed to Los Angeles to handle anti-ICE riots.
