Appropå president Thump ambitioner att ta över Grönland.

Den nyligen valda och insvurna presidenten Donald Trump har både under valkampanjen och efter han blev insvuren uttalat att det är en säkerhetspolitriskt nödvändighet att Grönland blir en del av USA territorium. Uttalandet har blivit mycket uppmärksammat och skapat mycket diskussion och nervositet både i Danmark och Grönland.

I en kommunikation/diskussion med en nära vän från Grönland i frågan, menande hen lite skämtsamt att de samiska folket har större motiv och mer bärande argument för att erbjuda president Trump att ta över Sápmi, men vi bör inte nödvändigtvis informera honom att Sápmi också inkluderat en bit av ryskt territorium. Att testa om idén har bärkraft är har själv sagt vissa svårigheter. Att be en mänsklig expert eller något så när vettig samisk individ göra en analys och komma med en vettig utsaga tedde sig utsiktslöst. Mitt enda val blev då att tillfråga det som nu kallas maskinintelligens eller artificiell intelligens (AI), eftersom den inte vägrar att svara omöjliga frågor

Frågan

Av det skälet ställde jag följande fråga till Chatgtp

”Give some resons why president Trump insted of taking over Greenland insted include the Saami territorrity in Sweden, Norway and Finland to USA. För att få ett vettigt svar, ställdes frågan på engelska. ” Svaret från ChatGTP blev följande:

”ChatGTP

The idea of incorporating the Sámi territories in Sweden, Norway, and Finland into the United States instead of taking over Greenland is highly hypothetical, and there are many factors to consider regarding why this would not have happened during Donald Trump’s presidency, or why it likely wouldn’t happen in general. Here are some reasons:

1. Geopolitical Sensitivity and International Relations

  • Sovereignty of Northern European Countries: The Sámi people live in a region that is part of sovereign states—Norway, Sweden, and Finland. These countries have strong national identities, and any attempt to annex or even offer to incorporate their territories into the U.S. would lead to significant diplomatic fallout. It would strain relations with important NATO allies, such as Norway and Sweden, and create immense political tensions in Europe.
  • Already Established Borders: The territorial borders of these countries are well established, and changes to these borders are generally only considered through mutual agreement or international law. Annexation, especially by a foreign power like the U.S., would be illegal under international law.

2. Historical and Cultural Significance of the Sámi People

  • Indigenous Rights: The Sámi are an Indigenous people with their own distinct language, culture, and history. The U.S. has its own historical challenges with Indigenous peoples, and it would be highly controversial (both domestically and internationally) to suggest bringing Sámi lands under U.S. control without the explicit consent of the Sámi people themselves.
  • Autonomy and Self-Determination: The Sámi have been fighting for greater recognition and autonomy in their own territories. There are ongoing movements for Sámi self-determination, which would make any proposal to incorporate their lands into another country, especially the U.S., a nonstarter.

3. Geography and Strategic Interests

  • Strategic Value: Greenland, with its proximity to the Arctic and strategic position between North America and Europe, holds far more geopolitical importance to the United States than the Sámi territories. Greenland’s location makes it a crucial piece for military and geopolitical strategy, particularly in the context of the Arctic region, where the U.S. has significant interests due to Russian and Chinese influence.
  • Economic Value: While the Sámi lands are resource-rich in natural beauty, they are not considered as strategically or economically valuable as Greenland, which holds vast mineral resources, potential for energy development, and access to important shipping routes.

4. Political and Legal Complications

  • Legal Precedents: The U.S. has never attempted to annex a part of Europe or Scandinavia. Even though the U.S. has historically acquired territories (e.g., the purchase of Alaska), it has never tried to take control of sovereign European regions. Such an action would be without precedent and would require a massive rethinking of international law and norms.
  • Domestic Political Backlash: American public opinion would likely be against any such move. The idea of incorporating a foreign region like the Sámi territories into the U.S. would be met with resistance from both the American public and from Congress. The political costs of pursuing such a strategy would likely outweigh any potential benefits.

5. Focus on Greenland Instead

  • Greenland’s Potential for U.S. Control: Greenland, while part of Denmark, had more clear pathways to American influence. Trump’s attempt to buy Greenland was based on the idea that the island’s geographic location and resources made it valuable to U.S. strategic interests, particularly as the Arctic becomes increasingly important due to climate change and competition with Russia.
  • Existing Danish Sovereignty: Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, and Denmark had previously signaled its reluctance to part with the territory, which is why Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland was more focused on a geopolitical purchase rather than taking over a foreign land that already had established sovereignty.

6. Lack of Demand or Interest

  • No Strong Advocacy for U.S. Statehood: There was no significant movement within the Sámi communities or within their governments to seek U.S. statehood or sovereignty. Even though the U.S. has been involved in global affairs and territorial negotiations in the past, there was little to no push from the Sámi people or governments to join the United States. The Sámi are focused on preserving their culture and identity, not on becoming part of another country.

7. Environmental and Social Challenges

  • Harsh and Remote Geography: The Sámi regions are sparsely populated and located in some of the most remote areas of Europe. The U.S. government would have to invest heavily in infrastructure and support systems to integrate such regions, which would be politically and economically difficult.
  • Cultural Preservation: One of the main concerns for the Sámi people would be the preservation of their language, culture, and traditions. U.S. governance may be perceived as a threat to the Sámi way of life, especially if the U.S. pushed for cultural assimilation.

8. Environmental Concerns

  • The Sámi territories, particularly in Finland, Sweden, and Norway, are known for their pristine natural environments, including vast forests, lakes, and the Arctic tundra. Any external governance or political changes could have adverse effects on these ecosystems, something both local communities and global environmental organizations would oppose.

Conclusion:

While the idea of the U.S. incorporating Sámi territories is certainly an interesting thought experiment, it doesn’t align with U.S. interests or the realities of international relations. Greenland, on the other hand, offered more direct geopolitical advantages, which is why Trump was more focused on trying to negotiate its acquisition. Any attempt to alter the status of the Sámi territories would be seen as a violation of sovereignty, international law, and the rights of Indigenous peoples, and would have little to no chance of being considered seriously in global politics”.

https://computersweden.se/article/1305587/det-har-ar-ai-och-sa-funkar-det.html