By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump’s nominee for ambassador to Iceland, Billy Long, reportedly joked about Iceland becoming the 52nd US state, sparking outrage. The Icelandic foreign ministry contacted the US embassy for clarification following the remarks, and a petition demanding Long’s rejection as ambassador quickly gained thousands of signatures. Long later apologized, claiming the comments were made in jest, but Icelandic officials expressed concern, recognizing the seriousness of such remarks, especially given existing tensions regarding Greenland. Some Icelandic representatives viewed the comments as a sign of growing disrespect from the US towards small states.
Read the original article here
Anger in Iceland over the incoming US ambassador’s “52nd state” joke has clearly ignited a significant firestorm of discontent, drawing in not only Icelanders but also garnering support and understanding from other nations, particularly Canada and Denmark, who have had similar experiences with US ambassadors making insensitive remarks.
The root of this anger appears to stem from the casual dismissal of national sovereignty. The “52nd state” quip, regardless of whether it was intended as a joke, is perceived as a patronizing and disrespectful comment that trivializes Iceland’s independence and its right to self-determination. The reaction is not just about a single remark; it’s a culmination of underlying concerns about US foreign policy, particularly under certain administrations, and a perceived pattern of bullying and disregard for international norms. The sentiment is that these types of comments, and the attitudes behind them, are simply unacceptable.
The general consensus is that the ambassador’s remark crosses a line, demanding a strong response. Many people feel that a “persona non grata” declaration is the appropriate course of action, a formal way of declaring the ambassador unwelcome. Refusing to accept their accreditation or cutting them off from official events are also proposed as methods to send a strong message of disapproval.
The “joke” is viewed as an abuser tactic, minimizing the harm caused and shifting the blame onto those who express offense. The overwhelming feeling is that this needs to be stopped, and it needs to be stopped now. A firm boundary must be set.
The sentiment resonates particularly strongly with Canadians who have also experienced similar remarks from US ambassadors. The shared experience has fostered a sense of solidarity, with Canadians empathizing with Iceland’s frustration. This isn’t just an Icelandic issue; it’s a symptom of a broader issue concerning US foreign policy and the behavior of some of its representatives.
Some believe the ambassador’s remark is indicative of a wider pattern of behavior from the US government, with a perceived lack of respect for allies and a tendency towards aggressive posturing. This, combined with anxieties about economic pressures, mercantilist tariffs, and threats to historical alliances, paints a picture of a nation that is seen as increasingly unreliable.
The focus then shifts from specific incidents to more extensive worries. There are worries about the U.S. government having no desire to act in good faith, and the concern that the US is actively championing a zero or negative interest rate.
The idea that the US might be interested in Iceland (or Greenland) for strategic reasons, especially in the context of the GIUK Gap and potential Russian involvement, surfaces as a worrying possibility. This suspicion further fuels the outrage, particularly when the ambassador’s remarks are seen through this lens.
Many commenters point to the ambassador’s background and affiliations, viewing him as a symbol of the problematic tendencies within the US government. The lack of tact, diplomacy, and the perceived arrogance are seen as evidence of a decline in diplomatic standards. Some people also question the competency levels.
The overall takeaway is that the “52nd state” joke was not well-received. Instead, it was viewed as a rude remark that disrespected Iceland’s sovereignty. The response calls for a firm stance against such behavior. The incident reveals a growing frustration with what is seen as an increasingly aggressive and insensitive US foreign policy, and a desire to see international norms and respect for national sovereignty upheld.