On Thursday, Danish politician Anders Vistisen defended his recent outburst directed at U.S. President Donald Trump, in which he told Trump to “f–k off.” He provided several justifications for his strong language used earlier in the week.
When CNN host Erin Burnett inquired about his bluntness, Vistisen explained that it was necessary in part because members of his party believe a firmer response is essential.
“For starters, it is an entirely unacceptable assault on Danish sovereignty to attempt to lay claim to territory that has belonged to Denmark since the 10th century—about three times longer than the United States has been around,” he stated, following Trump’s remark that acquiring Greenland “is an absolute necessity”—and suggesting he might resort to military action to achieve it.
He further remarked that a contributing factor to his outspoken comments on Tuesday was “because in my party, we are dissatisfied with the Danish government not taking a more definitive stance regarding these signals from the U.S. president.”
Representing the nationalist Danish People’s Party, Vistisen noted that the reactions to Trump’s other territorial assertions about Canada and Panama were more “firmly” countered by officials in those countries.
In a video address last month, Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino told Trump that “every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjoining zone is Panama’s and will remain so,” asserting that “the sovereignty and independence of our country are non-negotiable.”
Not long ago, Ontario Premier Doug Ford responded to Trump’s call for a U.S.-Canada union by proposing instead that Canada purchase Alaska and Minnesota.
The prime minister of Greenland, while expressing willingness to meet with Trump, has also reiterated that the territory is “not for sale,” and that “the Greenlandic people don’t wish to become Americans.”
Vistisen expressed indifference regarding the European Parliament’s vice president admonishing him for his choice of words.
“The European Parliament has a rather selective interpretation of these rules. It’s acceptable to label individuals as fascists, racists, or communists, yet apparently, one cannot use similar language as Mr. Trump has used towards his own top military officials in the Pentagon,” Vistisen articulated.
“If there is an issue, they can discuss it with me,” he stated. “I have not received any communication from the president of parliament since my speech, so I’m anticipating her to get in touch, but I don’t expect it to be a major issue.”
Vistisen also elaborated on his doubts regarding the possibility of Greenland or Denmark consenting to any sale.
“We take [American security] concerns quite seriously. We are a NATO ally. However, America has maintained a military presence in Greenland since 1941, and we have addressed all security issues. If America desires additional bases or different types of equipment in Greenland, there’s actually no opposition to that, neither from Greenland nor from Denmark,” he explained.
“And regarding the other argument that America can offer a sweet deal: We actually have historical examples of this: A century ago, we sold what you now refer to as the U.S. Virgin Islands. And that territory still lacks voting rights in your presidential elections. That area doesn’t have a voting member in your legislature—the Congress—either in the House of Representatives or the Senate,” he remarked.
“And during my visit for the 100-year commemoration, there was not a significant amount of enthusiasm regarding the way the U.S. handles that,” he added.
“Therefore, I think if the Greenlandic people assess this carefully and consider the status of U.S. Overseas Territories, or how indigenous people are treated in the U.S., it’s quite challenging to convincingly argue that they would receive a better arrangement from the United States than what they currently enjoy within the Danish Kingdom, where they possess full voting rights in the Danish parliament.”
