An extraordinary new development in President Trump's push to take over Greenland, as European leaders meet to discuss an emergency response to his new tariff threat. The president sent a letter to Norway's prime minister, according to a diplomat who seen the note. He wrote in part, quote.
Dear Jonas, considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars, plus I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace, although will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. CNN's Melissa Bell joins us live from Paris this morning, the prime minister of Norway now saying, yeah, that's the letter I got from President Trump talking about the Nobel Peace Prize, a pretty remarkable development. It's remarkable, a tone that struck in that letter.
Jerry German Jonas, that fit of pique almost said, not having received the Nobel Peace Prize used as justification for all that we've seen over the course of the weekend. And that is shown this extraordinary ratcheting up of this pressure on Europe to try and force them essentially to hand over or sell Greenland to the United States, which is an extraordinary turn of events that now tariffs should be being used at this particular moment to try and exert pressure on Europe. And that timing is really unfortunate, John, for a number of reasons.
First of all, because in front of European lawmakers was due this week, the very deal that was signed last summer to avert a trade war between the United States and Europe, the trade deal that sets American tariffs at 15% and that prevents the European Union from imposing levies on the United States. What we understand now is that European lawmakers are not going to pass that deal as a result of these renewed threats of fresh tariffs, tariffs on European Union countries. What that means is that if the deal is not agreed upon, the retaliatory €93 billion worth of European, counter tariffs that had been threatened at the time before the deal was reached would come into effect in February.
So really what you're seeing is the European Union preparing to answer very forcefully, after a great deal of outrage expressed over the course of the last couple of days as a result of these renewed threats, the reimposition therefore retaliatory tariffs being prepared even now by the European Commission, even though officially what we've heard this morning from the commission spokesman, John, is that Europe is looking for de-escalation. They're looking for compromise, dialog and negotiation, even as they prepare for these very forceful tactics. And beyond the imposition of these frozen retaliatory tariffs lies the possibility of what's been described as the bazooka option.
This is the Europe Europeans Antico coercion tool, which would see an even greater number of limits placed on the United States access to European markets. So a ratcheting up of the pressure, but a ratcheting up as well of the response even as negotiation is sought on. Yeah, talking in ways they really just haven't before.
Melissa Bell in Paris this morning. Thank you. With us now is retired major General James Spider Marks, our friend.
He is the head of geopolitical strategy at Academy Securities in Spider. How does something like this land overseas? All these European leaders now and officials have been meeting, trying to figure out how to deal with the United States on this issue and then they see this letter about the Nobel Peace Prize to the Prime Minister of Norway.
Yeah, it doesn't land very well. I mean, when you look at policies like this, or at least moving in this direction, the potential of embracing some type of a policy, I think many would say why it's being done makes sense. The United States needs to should have a much more enhanced relationship with Greenland, albeit we have one established in 1951, an agreement that allows the United States to have military access.
And it kind of essentially, in my terms, provides cooperation between those two one autonomous nation or autonomous entity to Denmark and the United States. So that can be identified and say, yeah, this this is a good deal. But when you look at how the president and this administration is addressing the possibility of enhancing that, it gets very problematic.
In my mind. I think cutting to the chase, the United States is not going to use military power to embrace Greenland or move Greenland in a direction more favorable toward the United States. And again, we already have a favorable relationship.
Let's not harm that. But provocative language like this really gets our allies moving in the direction of Hazarding. What's going to happen to NATO if the United States suddenly says, okay, this is more important, Greenland more important, this course of action, it's more important than our relationship to NATO and NATO will atrophy.
It'll become something entirely different than it is right now. If the United States is not a part of NATO. So you can connect those dots pretty quickly.
Yeah. Let's drill down on that last part. You were just saying there, do the reward cords from U.
S. control of Greenland. Do they merit the risks and the potential damage being done to NATO?
Well, the run is not worth the slide in the case of a military operation against Greenland. That's why I think it's it's off the table. I mean, provocative language will always be out there.
I mean, this is kind of a negotiating tactic. So I would say with confidence, the United States is not going to use military force against Greenland trying to acquire Greenland in a more in a tighter relationship. Certainly there are options.
Look, we got Seward's Folly right. 1867. We bought Alaska.
Let's go buy Greenland. We can do that if they want to. There's a seller.
We can buy it. I don't know the situation regarding that. Certainly there are other relationship ups.
Iceland was a part of Denmark, Denmark as well, until 1944, and they became independent, became a member of NATO. That's a potential path for Greenland as well. So in other words, there are options well below the threshold of military operation.
Your question is, would military operation obviate a NATO as we know it today? Yeah, sure. What?
And that would be an enormous risk, even if it maybe even the mere suggestion of it could do things to NATO, that maybe the United States, in the long term, would not want to see happen there. Major General James Spider Marks, always great to see you. Thank you so much.
Greenland is dominating the agenda at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. And as always, our Richard Quest has his ear to the ground and joins us now from Davos. Great to see you, Richard.
I mean no doubt that this is going to be very consequential. The conversation. So what are you hearing.
Is President Trump going to get his way when it comes to Greenland? Well I don't know on that. And he's certainly not going to get his way on Greenland.
Yeah. We're a long way off not being resolved. I think the Europeans are going to be meeting with the president over several issues, including Gaza and the setting up of the Board of Peace there.
But the fact that he sent this extraordinary note to the Prime minister of Norway, linking his muscular approach on Greenland to the fact he didn't get the peace prize and leaving. And now of imposing tariffs. They don't know what to do.
You see, here's the problem. There is a course of action, a natural course of action that will follow the implementation of those tariffs. No question about it.
You retaliate, you put other measures. You use the trade bazooka, but the Europeans don't want to do it, and they're going to be forced to, because what the United States is doing is unheard of, despite what that former Vice President Vance says. The reality is you can't just go and take another country.
So the Europeans are absolutely between it. But you're not hard rock and a hard place, but they will not just roll over and take this. Yeah.
Okay. So very interesting because we saw the British prime minister holding an emergency news conference just hours ago. That's after EU ambassadors hold their own meeting in Brussels.
So a lot of conversations that are happening because U. S. Treasury Secretary Scott Basin says, and I quote, Europeans project weakness and the US projects strength.
So I wonder if this is going to be a uniting force for the Europeans to come together on the right and the left. Okay. So firstly, I think the comment by Scott Besson yesterday was significant because this does show that it's not just the president on a whim of his own, even though if it was, he could force it.
This shows that senior administration officials like Scott Besson, at least openly or officially, are behind it. That makes it much more difficult for everybody to retaliate against. Then you've got the former vice president you were just hearing about.
There is a groundswell of US views that says Greenland should be part of the United States. Where they differ is on the methods and the modalities to make it happen. The problem here is the train is leaving the station.
The president has shoved everything on board and is sending it careening down. It is going to be very difficult to stop an all out trade. Well, at this particular rate, because the Europeans cannot note the word I say will not cannot be seen to be weak on this issue.
