Trump Misunderstood Greenland Deal With Denmark? Journo Puts Rubio On Spot With Direct-Question

Oh, it is? Who are you with? That would be like the third Voice of America question. All right, well, I'm going to think about it while I answer his question. Some time ago, an agreement was made between the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland regarding Greenland and the Arctic up there. And for the last couple of weeks, the president has been very active on the campaign trail, saying that he was very glad that Denmark gave Greenland to the U.S. And that is being perceived a little differently in Denmark and in Greenland. So has the president misunderstood the agreement that was made? Or has the people of Denmark and Greenland misunderstood? Yeah, I'm not sure what comments you're referring to, and I certainly haven't followed how it's been covered in Denmark. Suffice it to say, we have a very good deal, one the president is fully apprised of, he understands, and is very supportive of. And it builds on what we've done there for a long time, but one of the most important things that it does is it ensures that never do we have to worry about, irrespective of the decision Greenland makes, If they one day go independent, or if the state continues to be a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, it will never have to worry about it being a place where a potential adversary, through commercial means, Can gain access to things that would be harmful to any of our countries. I think just from a strategic standpoint and where it is geographically, which is what the President has always focused on when it comes to Greenland, is national security. It has always played a critical role in national security. It is more pronounced now, not just because of defenses against missiles, but because of the Arctic. And you now have a place that is not, we now have an agreement in place that will exist in perpetuity that ensures not just the equities of North America, meaning the United States and Canada, but all of our partners in NATO as well. And so it's very solid in that regard, and we think it's a very positive deal, and one that I think gave us what the President was most interested in, and that is protecting not just the national security of the United States, but the security of our allies in NATO and in North America. Okay, I'm going to do your question, and then one more, and then we've got to go. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. If you have U.S. is deporting dozens of Afghans back to their country. any questions It's the first time that the U.S. is deporting a large number of Afghans. or comments, please How is this plan moving? Well, I can't comment. I'm not avoiding your question. I'm just telling you, you'd have to direct do let me know. that to the Department of Homeland Security. Sure. And in regard to the region, Pakistan and the de facto government in Afghanistan are at war. Now, the Russians stepped in to mediate between two countries. President Trump has ended many wars in many countries. How do you see these tensions in the region? Well, Pakistan is concerned about terrorist attacks that are being sponsored from the territory of Afghanistan. They feel as if the Taliban has not done enough to constrain those attacks. And they've taken action against it. We obviously have heard those concerns on their part. We obviously don't want them to be targeted for terrorism. So if there's a productive role for us to play, we would play it. We don't necessarily have the closest relationship with the Taliban, as you can imagine. I can't imagine. So, But in the end, I mean, we've heard the concerns that Pakistan has raised, and we've seen some of those attacks that they point to. We're against terrorism, no matter where it emanates from and who it targets. Okay, final question. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. You mentioned the Houthis and Bab al-Mandeb, but there's a perception in the Middle East that the U.S. has downplayed the Houthi threat. How do you respond to that? You designated the Houthis as a terrorist organization, but the president himself said they are firing at one country. How do you respond to this perception? And And at one point, or... Is there a deadline the U.S. will join the Saudi strikes against the Houthis? Well, I won't comment on that part of those military objectives are always the decision for the commander in chief and the president. Suffice it to say that we have defense agreements with Saudi Arabia. We've lived up to those commitments and will continue to live up to those commitments, particularly those that are defensive in nature. Beyond that, those are decisions for the president to make. We are in regular and continuous contact with our partners in Saudi Arabia, not just here today, but on the phone and in conversations, including between the crown prince's highness and the president very recently and multiple times over the last month. So we're tracking all that very closely. But the statement I would make is we have a defense cooperation agreement. We have defense understandings with Saudi Arabia. We intend to continue to live up to those commitments that have been made. And we're happy to see that other countries have also participated and joined in helping defend the kingdom against these attacks. And we remind everybody that at the end of the day, the Houthis certainly and the capabilities they have today would not exist. They would not have the capabilities they have today had it not been for the support, direct support. of the Iranian regime that allowed them to grow in their capabilities and continue to destabilize the region. Okay, thank you guys. Thank you. Subscribe to One India and never miss an update. Download the OneIndia app now.