It's a product of America's faulty foreign reporting that I keep seeing the story that the Danish king updated the coat of arms in reponse to Trump. While it's true that the new coat of arms was unveiled around the time when Trump made his first comments (at least since 2019) on taking Greenland, it was part of the process of a new monach. Frederik took over as king last February and, as new monarchs often do, had the coat of arms updated.This kinda thing doesn't happen that fast. The new coat of arms got rid of the tri-crown symbol of Sweden and also gave equal weight to the Faroe Islands. Could the release been due to Trump's comments? Maybe, but the the new coat of arms was likely designed long before his election in November.
Frankly, Trump's bluster has lead to a better conversation in Denmark about it's historic (and current) treatment of Greenland and Greenlanders. There are a lot of dark chapters in the relaitonship between Greenland and Denmark but the goal in the last few decades has been towards independence, not sale to another state.
Not to dump on you Santiago, obviously it's not your reporting, and the point of your piece is well taken. More just my frustration as an American living in Denmark who, in reading American reporting about DK, has grown more distrustful of American foreign reporting in general as I've noticed lazy innaccuracies get bandied about often.
Loved reading this article. One small note though - while Colombia was not the first free territory, it did have the first free African town in the Americas, called San Basilio de Palenque, founded in 1619 by Domingo Biohó and a group of enslaved Africans who escaped their captors. I can only guess that this is probably what Petro was referring to, though he should've been more specific. Anyway - thanks for the entertaining and thoughtful analysis!
President Trump can and will deport people who enter the US illegally, whether from or merely through Mexico. All sovereign countries enforce their territorial borders.
We remind Mexico that that prerogative goes both ways. Here endeth the lesson.
The US isn't a "sovereign country". Its an imperium, a world system whose survival is propped up by a sensitive arrangement of alliances; alliances that Trump is very eager to undo. Most sovereign countries do not have their currencies being used to value oil, or have their nuclear warships patrolling the South China Sea
So... outside of "moral high ground" - whatever that means - what did she get exactly? Yes she did not provoke tariffs with a drunk tweet (a low bar), but I still do not see how she actually benefited Mexico in any tangible way.
The Mark Twain quote applies here: "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
She benefited Mexico by not engaging with Trump's attempts to bully and denigrate her country. She deftly parried his attack and exposed his brutish behavior for the world to see. She was speaking to her fellow citizens about elegantly standing up to threats with calm dignity.
She fought for her country's dignity to a standstill and lived to fight another day. She gave Trump enough rope to hang himself. She knew that a direct confrontation would only escalate badly and she made her stand and gave Trump an exit ramp and he cut his losses and took it.
As the article mentions, Trump is an emotional parasite creating confrontation and feeding off his opponents' outrage. She cut off the oxygen to the wildfire and Trump burned himself out. Canada would be wise to take lessons from her on how to spank a toddler throwing a tantrum. Bravo!
So when Trump decides to raise tariffs and kicks many thousands to Mexico (which to be fair is already happening in some ways), what will she do? Dignity? Display emotional intelligence? If this is what passes for leadership in these times, we are doomed.
Gee Mark, what would you suggest? Possibly a military invasion? Yes, dignity, integrity, and emotional intelligence are what I look for in a national leader. That you find these traits repugnant is very revealing and sadly too prevalent.
A national leader should be looking to find alliances and mark hard choices. Snarky comments about Mexican America are pathetic and less than useless. That you think such performative displays mean anything is revealing. The fact remains that Mexican president comes from a populist party with a highly questionable ability to govern the country (giving civilian powers to the military, failing at basic governmental functions like the monopoly on violence, prioritizing the dying oil industry), and I do not see her making any actual changes to that. With her and her predecessor's statist policies, she is clearly making the country weaker economically and less able to resist American pressure when it actually comes. So far, she did not overtly resist deportations, which is commendable, because it is not a hill to die on, but that is a low bar. On the international front, she could, for example, make (or seriously moot) a trade deal with the EU (stalled talks have been ongoing for many years) as leverage. Notice that while Mexicans are "revamping" talks with Brussels in the past few weeks (a process that would actually take months or not years), Trump ally Milei and supposed arch-enemy Lula actually signed a trade agreement (as Mercosur) with the EU. She could and should also make overtures to China (as Milei did after calling them the devil because he is not as stupid as makes out to be in his Twitter account). It is the duty of the leader of a weak power to find leverage and alternative sources of support.
Oh, you can be sure that Mexico and Canada are actively finding leverage against U.S. aggression by opening talks with the EU and China. Yes, this takes time, but both Mexico and Canada have stated they will reciprocate on any tariff violations to the USMCA agreements. If Trump is found violating agreements with close economic allies, other economic allies may take steps to cut their losses and protect themselves. Trump was elected promising prosperity and his actions logically lead elsewhere.
Your description of the new Mexican president is ironically a description of Trump and his corrupt cabinet: " The fact remains that Mexican president comes from a populist party with a highly questionable ability to govern the country (giving civilian powers to the military, failing at basic governmental functions like the monopoly on violence, prioritizing the dying oil industry..."
The self-destruction of the U.S. economy will accelerate actions to decouple from it and form new alliances. China is all over Mexico and Central/South America. You know they have to be loving this...
Well if my description fits both sides, then whatever imagined dignity they may or may not have still leads to economic stagnation. Though I do not see where Trump is failing at the monopoly on violence and the Mexican situation clearly worse by leaps and bounds. And at the moment the economy that is self-destructing at this moment is very much that of China with its housing crisis, not reporting economic stats, youth unemployment, falling and aging population, etc.
It's a product of America's faulty foreign reporting that I keep seeing the story that the Danish king updated the coat of arms in reponse to Trump. While it's true that the new coat of arms was unveiled around the time when Trump made his first comments (at least since 2019) on taking Greenland, it was part of the process of a new monach. Frederik took over as king last February and, as new monarchs often do, had the coat of arms updated.This kinda thing doesn't happen that fast. The new coat of arms got rid of the tri-crown symbol of Sweden and also gave equal weight to the Faroe Islands. Could the release been due to Trump's comments? Maybe, but the the new coat of arms was likely designed long before his election in November.
Frankly, Trump's bluster has lead to a better conversation in Denmark about it's historic (and current) treatment of Greenland and Greenlanders. There are a lot of dark chapters in the relaitonship between Greenland and Denmark but the goal in the last few decades has been towards independence, not sale to another state.
Not to dump on you Santiago, obviously it's not your reporting, and the point of your piece is well taken. More just my frustration as an American living in Denmark who, in reading American reporting about DK, has grown more distrustful of American foreign reporting in general as I've noticed lazy innaccuracies get bandied about often.
Thank you for this. I will include it in our next CrowdSource newsletter on Monday.
Loved reading this article. One small note though - while Colombia was not the first free territory, it did have the first free African town in the Americas, called San Basilio de Palenque, founded in 1619 by Domingo Biohó and a group of enslaved Africans who escaped their captors. I can only guess that this is probably what Petro was referring to, though he should've been more specific. Anyway - thanks for the entertaining and thoughtful analysis!
Thanks for this -- I did not know!
Welp, this aged like milk....
Where to begin with this …
Cabeza fría is great advice for American progressives, too.
President Trump can and will deport people who enter the US illegally, whether from or merely through Mexico. All sovereign countries enforce their territorial borders.
We remind Mexico that that prerogative goes both ways. Here endeth the lesson.
How did you come across our Substack?
I post from time to time on historical and political issues. Someone responded to such a post and I replied.
Glad to engage directly if that is of interest.
If so, I will share my premises for your consideration and ask yours in return.
Happy to have you on board! We like argument here (see our motto, above).
The US isn't a "sovereign country". Its an imperium, a world system whose survival is propped up by a sensitive arrangement of alliances; alliances that Trump is very eager to undo. Most sovereign countries do not have their currencies being used to value oil, or have their nuclear warships patrolling the South China Sea
So... outside of "moral high ground" - whatever that means - what did she get exactly? Yes she did not provoke tariffs with a drunk tweet (a low bar), but I still do not see how she actually benefited Mexico in any tangible way.
The Mark Twain quote applies here: "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
She benefited Mexico by not engaging with Trump's attempts to bully and denigrate her country. She deftly parried his attack and exposed his brutish behavior for the world to see. She was speaking to her fellow citizens about elegantly standing up to threats with calm dignity.
She fought for her country's dignity to a standstill and lived to fight another day. She gave Trump enough rope to hang himself. She knew that a direct confrontation would only escalate badly and she made her stand and gave Trump an exit ramp and he cut his losses and took it.
As the article mentions, Trump is an emotional parasite creating confrontation and feeding off his opponents' outrage. She cut off the oxygen to the wildfire and Trump burned himself out. Canada would be wise to take lessons from her on how to spank a toddler throwing a tantrum. Bravo!
So when Trump decides to raise tariffs and kicks many thousands to Mexico (which to be fair is already happening in some ways), what will she do? Dignity? Display emotional intelligence? If this is what passes for leadership in these times, we are doomed.
Gee Mark, what would you suggest? Possibly a military invasion? Yes, dignity, integrity, and emotional intelligence are what I look for in a national leader. That you find these traits repugnant is very revealing and sadly too prevalent.
A national leader should be looking to find alliances and mark hard choices. Snarky comments about Mexican America are pathetic and less than useless. That you think such performative displays mean anything is revealing. The fact remains that Mexican president comes from a populist party with a highly questionable ability to govern the country (giving civilian powers to the military, failing at basic governmental functions like the monopoly on violence, prioritizing the dying oil industry), and I do not see her making any actual changes to that. With her and her predecessor's statist policies, she is clearly making the country weaker economically and less able to resist American pressure when it actually comes. So far, she did not overtly resist deportations, which is commendable, because it is not a hill to die on, but that is a low bar. On the international front, she could, for example, make (or seriously moot) a trade deal with the EU (stalled talks have been ongoing for many years) as leverage. Notice that while Mexicans are "revamping" talks with Brussels in the past few weeks (a process that would actually take months or not years), Trump ally Milei and supposed arch-enemy Lula actually signed a trade agreement (as Mercosur) with the EU. She could and should also make overtures to China (as Milei did after calling them the devil because he is not as stupid as makes out to be in his Twitter account). It is the duty of the leader of a weak power to find leverage and alternative sources of support.
Oh, you can be sure that Mexico and Canada are actively finding leverage against U.S. aggression by opening talks with the EU and China. Yes, this takes time, but both Mexico and Canada have stated they will reciprocate on any tariff violations to the USMCA agreements. If Trump is found violating agreements with close economic allies, other economic allies may take steps to cut their losses and protect themselves. Trump was elected promising prosperity and his actions logically lead elsewhere.
Your description of the new Mexican president is ironically a description of Trump and his corrupt cabinet: " The fact remains that Mexican president comes from a populist party with a highly questionable ability to govern the country (giving civilian powers to the military, failing at basic governmental functions like the monopoly on violence, prioritizing the dying oil industry..."
The self-destruction of the U.S. economy will accelerate actions to decouple from it and form new alliances. China is all over Mexico and Central/South America. You know they have to be loving this...
Well if my description fits both sides, then whatever imagined dignity they may or may not have still leads to economic stagnation. Though I do not see where Trump is failing at the monopoly on violence and the Mexican situation clearly worse by leaps and bounds. And at the moment the economy that is self-destructing at this moment is very much that of China with its housing crisis, not reporting economic stats, youth unemployment, falling and aging population, etc.