Disagreement in Greenland’s most dominating political party
Siumut is the most dominant political party in Greenland. (wiki, english) (wiki, deutsch) (wiki,francais) . The founding fathers were Moses Olsen, Jonathan Motzfeldt and Lars Emil Johansen. Lars Emil Johansen is leader of the Parliament, Inatsisartut. Olsen and Motzfeldt have passed away.
A heavy disagreement is focusing at how to achieve independance. While the chairman of the party Kim Kielsen (wiki,english)
(wiki, deutsch) (wiki francais)
is following a pragmative and cooperative style to the Danish Government, Lars Emil Johansen and his protegée, Vittus Qujaukitsoq has aimed more directly at independance. The difference in approaches lead Kim Kielsen to regroup the division of labour between the ministers in the Greenlandic government – removing the area of foreign affairs from Vittus Qujaukitsoq. Vittus held a speech april 21 (if you can listen to Danish and understand it, you have the option underneath. While the Danish Governments position almost is thar Greenland never was a Danish colony – or at least stopped being a colony until the latest constitution of 1953, Qujaukitsoq during his speech claimed Greenland still to be a colony.
Qujaukitsoqs retirement was followed up by a firing of the Deputee Kai Holst Andersen April 30 th might be caused by some accusation of his ‘politization’ being a civil servant.
According to the agreement between Kim Kielsen and Holst Andersen the respective parts are obliged to be quiet about the reason.
Kai Holst-Andersen forced to quit after having written Vittus’ speech
Deputee Minister for Foreign Affairs Kai Holst Andersen is quitting his job. This is reported to be agreed under socalled mutual understanding with the Government (Naalakkersuisut). According to Greenlandic and Danish the idea is to give Kai Holst Andersen a socalled golden handshake. According to this, none of the parts may say anything in public about the reason. So the rest is silence.
I have listened to the speech. The most provocative statement in the speech is Qujaukitsoq claiming Greenland still to be a “Danish colony”. Nobody can really know whether this interpretation is true. I guess it is. However, if Holst Andersen should have been especially politisizing because of that a severe comment should be spoken.
The speech held by the Minister (Naalakkersuisoq) rests on his own behalf. If some claims were ‘politically incorrect’ injuring approaches held by the Danish Government, Vittus himself must have agreed to speak them out. The speech itself does not include legally false statements. Thus Holst Andersen has written a factual compliant speech with a provocative content his Minister wanted to say.
The fact that there are divergent approaches to the independance question in Siumut should not cause the leading civil servant to be fired.
Could Vittus Qujaukitsoq – still as Minister – have fired Holst Andersen if he had chosen to follow Kim Kielsens line. I would think so.
Vittus got fired after having held this speech (in Danish)
When i recorded the speech I did not know that it was going to Vittus Qujaukitsoq’s last as Minister for Foreign Affairs.
My special approach has to do with this article by Dr. Phil. Thorkild Kjaergaard. This article was brought February 24 in the Danish weekly Weekendavisen. Here, Kjaergaard uncontradictedly claims Greenland never according to law to have been a Danish Colony until 1946 (1953). THIS IS A FAKE. It is incompliant with every legal definition of “colony”.
During the speech, Vittus says that Greenland also today is a Danish Colony. The position of the Danish Government is either silently to support the fake or to avoid any question leading Government of Denmark to make anhy excuses or admitting faults.
If you want to stay compliant to the sense of the word ‘colony’ – that one country dominates or rules over another – the position of Vittus Qujaukitsoq could in the least be defended – while the Kjaergaard position is a simple fake.
Tandem between the Danish and the Greenlandic governments
The Danish and the Greenlandish governments have begun cooperating on Arctic and mining policies. At least, it seems to me to be the case. Normally such a cooperation would solely be productive and good. However, in this case it might after all be troublesome.
As the dispute inside Siumut goes to following the more aggressive Lars Emil Johansen concept of independance policy towards Denmark ( the one of Vittus Qujaukitsoq) or to cooperate with a Danish Government unwilling to take up discussion of Danish self reflection.
This cooperative approach is not discussed what so ever in the Greenlandic political society. Kielsen and the other big party (Socialists) IA are following a result oriented path.
Into the degree the premises are built partly on fake news it should have been discussed more openly in Greenland.
On this behalf it should seem obvious that the firing of Kai Holst Andersen goes beyond good administrative behaviour.