From President Donald Trump’s recent comments, you might think that Denmark ranked among America’s preeminent geopolitical foes. On Friday, while meeting with oil company executives about the future of the reserves in Venezuela, he scoffed at the notion that the Danish had any legitimate claim to the sparsely populated, icy vastness that is Greenland, putting aside minor details like the Danes’ colonial presence there since 1721 and its formal status as a district of Denmark since 1953.
“The fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land. Uh, I’m sure we had lots of boats go there also,” Trump said. The president was a little vague on who the “we” in that sentence would be, since the United States formed only 250 years ago. (An event or two has been scheduled this year to mark that occasion. The White House might want to pencil in July 4 on the president’s calendar.)
A few moments earlier, Trump said, “I’m a fan of Denmark, too. I have to tell you. And I — and you know, they’ve been very nice to me. Uh, I’m a big fan.”
Understandably, these days the Danish don’t feel like Trump is such a fan, what with all the saber-rattling over Greenland. But there are a few areas where the Trump administration is shifting policy to make the U.S. more like the land of Legos, Hamlet and hygge, the Danish concept of coziness.
By European standards, Denmark is astonishingly tough on immigration. In 2016, Denmark passed a law allowing police to seize valuables worth more than 10,000 kroner (close to $1,000 today) from refugees to cover housing and food costs. Items of sentimental value, such as wedding rings, are exempt.
Ayşe Bala Akal wrote in 2021 for the Peace Research Institute Oslo that Denmark’s policies were on “a clear trajectory towards hostility as a form of migration control.”
Marie Sandberg, director of the Center for Advanced Migration Studies at the University of Copenhagen, has written that Denmark is “a pioneer in restrictive migration policies,” including “making the status of all refugees in the country temporary, regardless of their humanitarian protection needs.”
Last March, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told Politico that Vice President JD Vance had a point on mass migration into European countries, and said, “I consider this mass migration into Europe as a threat to the daily life in Europe.”
Shocked American progressives ought to keep in mind that Frederiksen is a Social Democrat, the major Danish left-of-center party, and the Social Democrats have had either a majority or a significant role in coalition parliamentary majorities since 2011.
It’s enough to leave Democrats in the U.S. wondering if their Danish counterparts somehow missed an inoculation against taking hard-line stances on migrants and refugees. It turns out that Denmark is comparably laid back on childhood vaccinations, not recommending that all children be vaccinated for hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, meningococcal disease, influenza and the coronavirus.
Jens Lundgren is an infectious-disease specialist at Copenhagen University Hospital and a member of the advisory board that makes recommendations to the Danish Health Authority about which shots to include in the country’s vaccine program. He told the publication Science that the Danish schedule is designed with a specific purpose in mind: “Vaccination fatigue among parents is a real issue that you need to take seriously, and it’s on us as experts to prioritize with that in mind. We can’t just put more vaccines into the program.”
Unsurprisingly, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. loves the Danish example, and on Jan. 5, he announced, “We are aligning the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent.” The would be “international consensus” as in: Denmark.
If the White House weren’t busy trying to intimidate the Danes, the administration might find some other Copenhagen policies extremely congenial.
New tax cuts were enacted on Jan. 1, aiming to “increase labour supply and reward those who take on extra work,” according to the Danish tax and accounting firm Andreas Regnskab.
Denmark has increased its defense spending in recent years, and this year’s outlay is equivalent to 3 percent of gross domestic product, and aims to reach the 5 percent mark called for by Trump ahead of NATO’s target timeline of 2032.
And while European Social Democrats traditionally prefer a much larger government role in the economy than Republicans in America do, that isn’t a drawback for today’s Trumpified GOP, where government elbowing its way into private companies’ business is now official policy.
So, not only is Trump threatening a NATO ally when he says, “We’re going to be doing something with Greenland, either the nice way or the more difficult way.” He’s also threatening a NATO ally that is like-minded with him on immigration, childhood vaccines, tax cuts, defense spending and economic policies.
At this rate, assuming Trump doesn’t purchase or conquer Greenland during his second term, some future Democratic president could argue the U.S. ought to annex the massive island, just to save Greenlanders from that xenophobic anti-vaccine regime in Copenhagen.
The post Why fight Denmark? It’s practically MAGA-land! appeared first on Washington Post.
