The New Imperialism: Should Switzerland Buy Minnesota?
If Trump can buy Greenland, shopping for new territories may become the latest version of imperial longings.
Photo by Friedrich Weibel, 2024
It used to be that imperialism was all about gunboats and marines. The military would back up the commercial interests of a nation by setting up bases and garrisons in far flung places around the world. That was so 19th century.
Wait a minute. Come to think of it, Putin is stuck in the 19th century still. Annexing Crimea and sending little green men in tanks into Donbass in 2014 qualifies him as the quintessential 19th century imperialist of the 21st century.
The trouble is, we all thought we had left that sort of land grabbing behind after World War Two.
Time to wake up. Imperialism is alive and well in the minds of some folks, and by that we don’t just mean the strongmen of today’s parade grounds. Recent elections in several countries show widespread support for nationalists’ agendas that include much sympathy for empire building, be it their own or that of similarly minded governments.
Trump, your original real estate tycoon, was elected based on his promise of making America great again. Some of us thought that was really not necessary. But we could be wrong now as Trump has added a twist to greatness. It’s no longer about the City on the Hill, how silly, but about landmass.
Trump being Trump, that would automatically imply BIG landmass. Greenland fits the bill nicely. If you thought this was all about strategic interests and minerals, you are wrong. It’s about the same color ink on the map. The U.S. already has bases on Greenland and friendly business relations with Denmark, a NATO country no less. So let’s be clear, it’s about coloring by numbers, everything else is brain fog.
Trump wants to “acquire” Greenland from Denmark, a friendly nation. It is not clear what that would mean. Old style imperialism, as in Commodore George Dewey sailing into Manila Bay (1898)? Or more like the even earlier deal, as in Seward’s Folly purchase of Alaska (1867)?
Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, has made it clear that Greenland is not for sale. To underline her point, the Danes are now beefing up their navy as part of a huge increase in military spending.
What about the 58,000 Danish citizens called Greenlanders? They are not in a hurry to change flags. Being part of Denmark, they are also part of a prosperous country with health benefits, free university education, and fair elections, including representation in Denmark’s parliament, the Folketing, where Greenland holds two of the 179 seats. Compare that to American Samoa with a population of just under 50’000 and zero seats in the House of Representatives of 435 members. That’s likely worse, depending on your point of view and your arithmetic, than Puerto Rico, population 3.5 million, represented in Washington by a lone delegate, Jenniffer Aydin González-Colón, with NO voting rights.
The Greenlanders know all about that, I think, or would be well advised to investigate the practical implications of becoming part of Trump’s latest real estate deal. They would likely be demoted from first class Danish citizens to second class American citizens. In addition, they would lose the benefits that have become standard of a modern European nation.
Having said that, Trump and I are aware that cash is king. That may be where our shared insights end, but it’s crucial. The U.S. treasury could just shower the Greenlanders with enough greenbacks to make them reconsider. Trump could offer each person currently residing on Greenland, excluding the Americans already there, a welcome bonus of, say, 100,000 dollars. That would cost the American taxpayers a modest 5.8 billion dollars. Up that to one million dollars per person and it would still be only 58 billion US dollars. Savvy readers might object on the grounds that the entire Louisiana Purchase of 1803 cost only 15 million dollars (still a steal if adjusted for inflation) and the Alaska Purchase of 1867 hit the books with only 7.2 million dollars, or about 129 million dollars in 2023 terms.
But times, they are a changing. Denmark would not let Greenland go without asking the Greenlanders. And that is where the money comes in. Whereas in times past the money would go to monarchs to pay for wars[i], even cash strapped European democracies today would put the will of the people over pecuniary ends. The Danes might insist that they be compensated for the loss of Greenland, but if the Greenlanders want out, the idea of US dollars finding their way to Copenhagen will remain wishful thinking.
It could be a new model for empire building. Imagine the possibilities. Wealthy nations could acquire other countries, just like corporations buy other companies, and the deal would go through if the country or territory purchased consented.
It would be far preferable to fighting wars. Putin could have purchased Ukraine, but chose to fight a costly war instead. Of course, he knew that a majority of Ukrainians would have rebuffed his charm offensive. No amount of money will compensate for dictatorship and torture chambers.
Modern empire building, therefore, would have to offer more than money. It would involve irresistible package deals consisting of cash as well as long term benefits.
This is where Switzerland comes in. It is simply not fair that big countries like Russia and the United States want to get even bigger, all at the expense of already small nations. Let smaller countries have a turn a being great!
Switzerland has always been a great country in the pre-Trumpian sense; no need to make it great again. But Trump has shifted the discourse on this score and we need to seriously start thinking about great as in big. Switzerland’s borders have remained unchanged since 1815, and that by itself is alarming. In the 210 years since then, respectable nations across Europe (to say nothing of the United States) have expanded, changed, and exchanged territories multiple times. The Swiss in negligent apathy have not budged. Worse, the Swiss refused to expand their territory when they could have done so at no cost! When the adjacent Austrian region of Voralberg voted overwhelmingly in a popular referendum to join Switzerland with 81% in favor of the switch in 1919, the Swiss couldn’t even gather enough signatures to put it on the ballot and Switzerland’s federal government buried the idea in a cabinet vote, 6 to 1.
The fact is, the Swiss have always been rather picky when it came to adding new member states to their federation, at times even getting rid of territory it had previously acquired but deemed no longer fitting Swiss interests or internal cohesion.
But if the Greenland deal goes through, Switzerland should in turn purchase Minnesota. I think it would be a win-win proposition. Situated in the middle of Europe and encompassing its major watersheds, Switzerland would naturally be drawn to Minnesota’s geographic situation in the middle of the North America with water flowing from there to the Hudson Bay to the north, the Great Lakes to the east, and the Gulf of Mexico (excuse me, the Gulf of America!) to the south. Even its latitude would correspond nicely, in a bandwidth around 47 degrees north, Lake Itasca (Mississippi headwaters) lining up perfectly with my hometown of Solothurn, Switzerland. Minnesotans would love Switzerland’s many lakes and it would make them feel good because there are many more of them in the Gopher State.
Minnesotans are great people. They are hard working like the Swiss and mostly down to earth. They would immediately feel comfortable being part of the Swiss Federation as the 27th state or canton, moving up from the current number 32 spot in the United States. The Swiss would not treat the new state like Puerto Rico (“floating island of garbage”) but like the shining North Star it will remain. Oh yes, of course it would remain a state, and not relinquish any of its rights and privileges. It would not simply be a territory; that’s not how the Swiss treat their acquisitions, but become a full member of the Swiss Federation with equal representation in parliament from the start. Minnesota’s 5.7 million people versus Switzerland’s 8.7 million would give the new state 79 of the 200 seats in the National Council (corresponding to the U.S. House of Representatives) compared to the current 8 Minnesota House delegates to Washington. That’s a whopping tenfold increase, consider that! Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith would keep their seats as Senators, but would fly to Bern instead of Washington.
On the downside, politicians elected to legislative office will have to get real jobs. The Swiss don’t like to pay politicians for writing laws. They should work in regular jobs like regular taxpayers. That way, they know where the money comes from. Also, being a politician in Switzerland is not a full-time occupation anyway unless you’re in the executive or judicial branches.
Switzerland being organized much like the United States, Minnesota would keep its state legislature. But the governor would get four colleagues with whom he or she would have to share executive powers and perhaps the mansion on Summit Avenue in St. Paul. The Swiss at no level of government entrust a single person with too much power. As it turns out, that has been a very good thing because, as Lord Acton, the 19th century British philosopher and historian put it: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Which leads me to some of the other political, economic, and social benefits Minnesotans would enjoy from day one.
1. No executive orders, at any level of government. See comment above. The Swiss just don’t trust a single human being with that much power. The Swiss never had their own monarch and just would not feel comfortable with elevating a human being to a constitutional level of privilege. That is also why you will not find the portraits of Swiss politicians in government offices, on coins, bills, or in other public spaces. No statues of Swiss politicians come to mind. The only exception I can think of is one of George Washington in a park on lake Lugano, but he wasn’t Swiss.
2. No presidential pardons. See reasons above, plus the simple fact that the Swiss do not have a president as such just as they never had a monarch. Pardons, if there are any, are again in the hands of many, never, ever a single person, and are negotiated between the executive branch (consisting of 7 members) and a parliamentary commission made up of all political parties.
3. Speaking of parties, Minnesotans would immediately have the choice of several parties and would be free to form additional parties. Minnesota’s delegation to Bern would reflect the state’s great diversity much better, leveraging new political power from Minnesota’s rich cultural and social heritage. Swiss voting laws, which Minnesota would be able to adapt, would be a mix of direct and proportional voting to ensure fair and true representation.
4. Initiative and referendum rights would become law at all levels of government. Citizens would be encouraged to participate in political life more fully than they are able now. Minnesotans, like all Swiss citizens, would be called to the polls at least four times a year. There is always much to decide!
5. In return for more civil rights, Minnesota men would serve in the Swiss army, women if they want to. Soldiers keep much of their equipment at home, including their peronal assault rifle, which they will need for practice when not in the service. For that purpose, cities and towns would have to set up shooting ranges with automated targets.
6. There will be other visible signs of being part of Switzerland. The Swiss constitution mandates public transportation to all towns. Imagine high speed rail service several times a day between, say, Mankato and Brainerd. I also like the idea of hourly bus service between Fertile and Climax. Think of shiny Mercedes buses run by the Swiss postal service that gets people to where they want to go and carries the mail at the same time. Steamship services on Lake of the Woods, Leech Lake, and Mille Lacs would also be nice (summer only).
7. The economic benefits would be huge. The Swiss franc would make shopping in North Dakota a steal because the value of the US dollar keeps sliding and now stands at about 1.1 to the Swiss franc. Mortgage rates would drop. Swiss mortgage rates currently stand at about 1.5% as the Swiss National Bank has just lowered its lending rate to banks to 0.5%. Switzerland’s highly innovative and diverse economy would dovetail nicely with Minnesota’s, combining the two into an economic powerhouse.
8. Save on taxes. U.S. federal taxes would fall away, of course, and be replaced by lower Swiss federal taxes that only kick in for relatively high earners. Most money in Switzerland is collected by the states anyway, and Minnesota is already pretty good at that. In general, the Swiss like to spend public money where it is collected: the feds spend it on federal stuff (defense, big infrastructure), the states on state stuff (education, welfare, health, more infrastructure), and the cities on municipal stuff (primary education, utilities, streets).
9. English would become Switzerland’s fifth national language. It is already, of sorts, but Minnesota’s accession to the Swiss Federation would make it official after the obligatory plebiscite, of course. Minnesotans would graduate from High School with two foreign languages, a big bonus of being part of a great country that values cultural diversity.
The Swiss would also benefit from its new member state. After all, its acquisition of Minnesota would not be entirely without self-interest. Minnesota’s diverse economy would contribute to Switzerland’s GDP, adding about USD 400 billion to Switzerland’s USD 885 billion GDP.
But in my humble opinion, the greatest benefit of adding Minnesota to the Swiss Federation would be further cultural enrichment. Switzerland could use some Minnesota nice and its great sense of humor. Swiss students would be required to read Garrison Keillor, Sinclair Lewis, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Louise Erdrich, and Robert Bly. I look forward to busloads of visiting Lutheran pastors tobogganing in Grindelwald and Swiss farmers discussing crop rotation with their new friends in, well, Fertile (before taking the bus to Climax for bowling).
I think you get my drift. Before this gets much longer, we should discuss some practical steps in empire building 2.0. Switzerland will have to make some kind of offer to the United States and the people of Minnesota. It won’t be cheap, but as in any good acquisition, it will pay for itself. The harder part will be to persuade the Donald. I think that will require the enlistment of Trump’s newly designated ambassador to Switzerland, Callista Gingrich, herself of Swiss ancestry and with excellent connections to the Trump family, including Melania. The Swiss National Bank will have to come up with a generous welcome bonus for each Minnesotan instead of handing out billions to the federal government. The package should also include tax breaks for the first five years and incentives to book trips to Switzerland to get to know the country’s great cuisine.
Finally, Minnesotans will have to start a petition. Collecting signatures, using the arguments outlined above, will be easy. We could start an initiative in Switzerland. With a bit of luck, the Swiss might just agree to add to their territory for a change.
It would be great. You’d love it.
[i] Napoleon badly needed cash to fight everyone in Europe in 1803, and Alexander II of Russia had to pay back war debts after losing to a coalition led by Britain and France in the Crimean War of 1853-1856.