Greenland's new parliament convenes for first time amid Trump pressure
COPENHAGEN, April 7 (Reuters) - Greenland's new parliament convened for the first time on Monday after a general election in March, amid repeated expressions of interest by U.S. President Donald Trump to control the semi-autonomous Danish island.
Jens-Frederik Nielsen, 33, who has called for political unity against external pressures since his Demokraatit (Democrats) party won the March election, took office as the youngest prime minister of Greenland and will face the challenges posed by Trump's ambitions.
"It has never been more important to stand together for our country and stable governance. That's why I'm happy with this broad coalition with 75% of the votes," Nielsen said, according to Greenlandic broadcaster KNR.
Nielsen said last week Greenland would strengthen ties with Denmark, calling it "Greenland's closest partner", until the Arctic island could become a sovereign nation. He noted that the semi-autonomous Danish territory ultimately wishes to become independent.
The pro-business Democrats Party, which favours a slow march to independence, emerged as the winner last month in a general election, tripling its representation to 10 seats. The party said it would form a coalition government with three other parties.
The coalition, which spans much of the political spectrum, represents 23 of the 31 parliamentary seats. The Naleraq party, a staunch pro-independence party that doubled its seats to eight in the election, will not be part of the coalition.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
32 minutes ago
- Reuters
Middle Eastern stocks lower on geopolitics
June 12 (Reuters) - Stock markets in the Middle East ended lower on Thursday with uncertainty looming after the U.S. decided to relocate personnel from the region ahead of nuclear talks with Iran. U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday U.S. personnel were being moved out of the Middle East because "it could be a dangerous place", adding that the United States would not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia's benchmark index (.TASI), opens new tab declined 1.5%, dragged down by a 1.2% fall in Al Rajhi Bank ( opens new tab and a 3.3% decrease in Saudi Arabian Mining Company ( opens new tab. The Saudi bourse retreated, erasing all recent recovery gains and pushing the index back towards early June levels. All sectors posted negative performances, indicating a pervasive risk-off sentiment during today's session, said Milad Azar, market analyst at XTB MENA. "While solid fundamentals offer a hopeful outlook, the market's reaction was more heavily influenced by geopolitical tensions," Azar said. "However, this impact may be temporary, and the market could reverse course." Dubai's main share index (.DFGMGI), opens new tab slid 2.3%, its biggest intraday fall in two months, with blue-chip developer Emaar Properties ( opens new tab dropping 3.4%. In Abu Dhabi, the index (.FTFADGI), opens new tab finished 1.1% higher. The decision by the U.S. to evacuate personnel comes at a volatile moment in the region. Trump's efforts to reach a nuclear deal with Iran appear to be deadlocked and U.S. intelligence indicates that Israel has been making preparations for a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Iranian Defence Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh said on Wednesday that if Iran was subjected to strikes it would retaliate by hitting U.S. bases in the region. The Qatari index (.QSI), opens new tab lost 0.8%, as almost all its constituents were in negative territory including petrochemical maker Industries Qatar ( opens new tab, which was down 1.4%. Outside the Gulf, Egypt's blue-chip index (.EGX30), opens new tab was down 1.3%.
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Judge to consider California's request for restraining order against Trump over use of troops in LA
A federal judge on Thursday is expected to hear arguments over the request of the California governor, Gavin Newsom, for a temporary restraining order to block Donald Trump from deploying national guard troops and marines to suppress protests against immigration raids in Los Angeles. The hearing, set for 4.30pm ET in federal district court in San Francisco, comes after the presiding judge, Charles Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee, earlier declined to grant an immediate injunction against the administration. The request for the restraining order is part of a lawsuit filed by the state of California challenging Trump's move to call up more than 4,000 national guard troops and about 700 active-duty marines based at Twentynine Palms in California over Newsom's objections. The complaint is largely aimed at the legitimacy of Trump's order. It sought a judicial declaration to nullify the order and to make clear that it was unlawful for the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, to bypass Newsom in federalizing the state's national guard forces in this instance. The hearing is expected to focus on the Title 10 statute invoked by Trump, which allows the president to federalize the national guard if there is a 'rebellion or a danger of rebellion', or if the president is 'unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. Although pockets of protests turned violent – some threw rocks at law enforcement vehicles and set alight a series of driverless Waymo cars – local authorities in Los Angeles county did not say they needed federal assistance. The California attorney general, Rob Bonta, is expected to argue that Trump needed Newsom's approval or request for such a mobilization, and that there was no basis to bring in national guard forces because the protests did not rise to the level of a rebellion. But the Trump administration has suggested that decision on whether to federalize the national guard was at the discretion of the president, and that federal courts cannot second-guess decisions by the executive branch as to whether the military was needed. In its 29-page response to the lawsuit, the justice department also said Newsom was misrepresenting the situation because the military was always only going be used in a protective function and not to perform law enforcement functions. The justice department cited memos from the office of legal counsel, written by William Rehnquist before he became chief justice of the United States, which suggested the military could be used to protect federal buildings from anti-war protesters during the Vietnam war. The memos envisioned the president relying upon his inherent authority in the US constitution as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, possibly to get around the limitations of the Posse Comitatus Act, which makes it illegal for the military to perform a law enforcement function on domestic soil unless the president has invoked the Insurrection Act, which Trump has not. The memos have never been legally tested in court. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion The justice department also contended that the Trump administration had complied with the statute in full with respect to the governor's putative role, because it had notified Newsom of Trump's intentions to deploy the national guard and marines before they were implemented. Trump has been suggesting the idea of deploying troops against Americans since his first term, when some Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020 turned violent. He opted against doing so at the time, but has since expressed regret to advisers that he did not punish the protesters more aggressively. Notably, during a campaign rally in 2023, Trump vowed to respond more forcefully if elected to a second term. 'You're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,' he said of the president's usual role in deciding whether to send in the military. 'The next time, I'm not waiting.'
Reuters
43 minutes ago
- Reuters
Most G7 members ready to lower Russian oil price cap without US
BRUSSELS/PARIS, June 12 (Reuters) - Most countries in the Group of Seven nations are prepared to go it alone and lower the G7 price cap on Russian oil even if U.S. President Donald Trump decides to opt out, four sources familiar with the matter said. G7 country leaders are due to meet on June 15-17 in Canada where they will discuss the price cap first agreed in late 2022. The cap was designed to allow Russian oil to be sold to third countries using Western insurance services provided the price was no more than $60 a barrel. The European Union and Britain have been pushing to lower the price for weeks after a fall in global oil prices made the current $60 cap nearly irrelevant. The sources, who declined to be named, said the EU and Britain are ready to lead the charge and go it alone, backed by the other European G7 countries and Canada. They said it is still unclear what the U.S. will decide, though the Europeans are pushing for a united decision at the meeting. Japan's position also remains uncertain, they said. "There is a push among European countries to reduce the oil price cap to $45 from $60. There are positive signals from Canada, Britain and possibly the Japanese. We will use the G7 to try to get the U.S. on board," one of the sources said. The White House had no immediate comment. During the G7 finance ministers meeting in the Canadian Rockies last month, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent remained unconvinced there was a need to lower the cap, according to sources. However some U.S. Senators may endorse the idea, including Lindsay Graham, who in recent weeks told reporters he supports lowering the cap. Graham is pushing a hard-hitting new set of Russia sanctions that could impose steep tariffs on buyers of Russian oil. The EU has proposed lowering the price to $45 a barrel in its latest 18th package of sanctions. The package must have unanimity from member states in order for it to be adopted, which could take several weeks. Russia's largest export grade, Urals, trades at around a $10 a barrel discount to the Dated Brent benchmark out of Baltic ports. Brent futures have been trading below $70 a barrel since early April. Sources said Washington's buy-in was not essential to lower the cap owing to Britain's dominance in global shipping insurance, and the EU's influence on the Western rules-abiding tanker fleet. The U.S., however, does matter when it comes to dollar-denominated payments for oil and its banking system. The EU and its Western allies have been progressively cracking down on Russia's shadow fleet of tankers and related actors, which work to circumvent the cap. The pressure has started to hurt Moscow's revenues and Western allies hope this will push more of the oil trade back under the cap. Russia's state-owned oil producer Rosneft reported a 14.4% slump in profits last year.
