Diplomatic Disaster: How Colonial-Era Thinking Undermines American Credibility

The Controversy Unfolds

Billy Long’s prospects of becoming the United States ambassador to Iceland have hit a significant stumbling block this week, creating an international incident that has strained relations with a key Arctic ally. The former Missouri congressman found himself at the center of a diplomatic firestorm after making comments suggesting Iceland should become the 52nd state with him serving as governor. These remarks, made in an interview with Arctic Today, triggered immediate backlash in Iceland and forced Long to issue a public apology Thursday.

The controversy emerged from what Long described as a joking conversation with former colleagues in the U.S. House, where he reportedly quipped about Iceland becoming America’s next acquisition after Greenland. The timing couldn’t be worse—Long was nominated to serve as ambassador to Iceland after stepping down from his leadership role at the Internal Revenue Service last year. Rather than demonstrating the diplomatic finesse required for such a sensitive position, Long’s comments revealed a stunning lack of judgment about international sensitivities.

International Fallout and Icelandic Response

The reaction from Iceland was swift and serious. The Icelandic Foreign Ministry confirmed to Politico that it had contacted the U.S. embassy in Reykjavík seeking clarification about Long’s remarks. This formal diplomatic inquiry underscores how seriously Iceland takes this breach of protocol. Even more telling was the response from Viðreisn Sigmar Guðmundsson, a member of Iceland’s parliament, who stated that Long’s statement “must be taken seriously and represented a fundamental disrespect for the sovereignty of small nations.”

Guðrmann’s comments cut to the heart of the matter: “There is no doubt that this is very serious for a small country like Iceland. We need to understand that all the security arguments made by the U.S. regarding Greenland also apply to Iceland.” This statement reveals the deeper geopolitical concerns underlying the controversy. Icelanders didn’t take the matter lightly either—they launched a petition urging Foreign Minister Katrín Gunnarsdóttir to reject Long as ambassador, which quickly gathered 2,000 signatures.

Long’s Defense and Political Context

Facing mounting criticism, Long attempted to defuse the situation by claiming his comments were taken out of context. He told Arctic Today that he was “not serious” when making the statement, characterizing it as a joke about Jeff Landry, President Donald Trump’s U.S. Special Envoy to Greenland, potentially becoming governor of Greenland. “I was with some people, who I hadn’t met for three years, and they were kidding about Jeff Landry being governor of Greenland,” Long explained, “and they started joking about me. And if anyone took offense to it, then I apologize.”

Long’s political trajectory adds context to this diplomatic misstep. A former auctioneer and talk radio host who represented Missouri in the U.S. House from 2011 to 2023, Long was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to lead the IRS in June. Remarkably, just two months later he was pushed out with little explanation and nominated instead to be ambassador for Iceland. He has not yet been confirmed by the Senate for that position, and this recent controversy may well jeopardize his confirmation prospects entirely.

The Dangerous Precedent of Colonial Mentality

What makes Long’s comments so particularly troubling isn’t just their diplomatic clumsiness, but the underlying colonial mindset they reveal. The suggestion that an independent, sovereign nation like Iceland could or should become a U.S. territory reflects a disturbing anachronistic worldview that has no place in modern international relations. This isn’t the 19th century—nations aren’t commodities to be acquired or territories to be claimed. Iceland has been an independent republic since 1944, with its own rich history, culture, and democratic institutions that deserve respect, not casual dismissal as potential American real estate.

The timing of these comments is especially damaging given current geopolitical tensions in the Arctic region. As climate change opens new shipping routes and resource exploration opportunities, the Arctic has become an area of strategic importance. America needs strong, trusting relationships with Arctic nations like Iceland, not relationships strained by diplomatic insults. Long’s comments undermine the very foundation of mutual respect necessary for effective international cooperation in this sensitive region.

Sovereignty and the Sanctity of International Partnerships

At the heart of this controversy lies a fundamental principle: respect for national sovereignty. Small nations like Iceland have every right to expect that American diplomats will treat their independence with the seriousness it deserves. When a nominated ambassador casually jokes about annexing the very country he’s supposed to represent, it sends a message that America views international partnerships as transactional rather than based on mutual respect and shared values.

This incident raises serious questions about the appointment process for ambassadorships. Diplomatic positions should go to individuals with demonstrated understanding of international relations, cultural sensitivity, and respect for the sovereignty of other nations. The fact that someone with Long’s apparent mindset could be nominated to such a sensitive position suggests deeper problems in how America selects its international representatives.

The Damage to American Credibility

Perhaps most concerning is the damage this incident does to American credibility on the world stage. The United States has historically positioned itself as a defender of freedom, self-determination, and national sovereignty. When our diplomatic appointees make comments that contradict these values, it undermines our moral authority and makes it more difficult to advocate for democratic principles internationally.

Our allies need to trust that American officials respect their independence and sovereignty. Incidents like this make that trust more difficult to maintain, particularly among smaller nations who may already feel vulnerable in an increasingly complex global landscape. The fact that Iceland felt compelled to formally seek clarification through diplomatic channels indicates how seriously they view this breach of diplomatic protocol.

Moving Forward: Lessons for American Diplomacy

This unfortunate incident provides an important opportunity for reflection on the standards we should expect from our diplomatic corps. First and foremost, ambassadors must understand that their words carry weight beyond personal conversations. What might seem like harmless joking among colleagues can have serious international consequences when it involves the sovereignty of allied nations.

Secondly, this situation highlights the need for greater seriousness in the ambassadorial appointment process. While political appointments have long been part of American diplomacy, they should go to individuals who demonstrate genuine understanding of and respect for international relations. The role of ambassador is too important to treat as a political reward for loyal supporters who lack the necessary diplomatic sensibilities.

Finally, America must reaffirm its commitment to respecting the sovereignty of all nations, regardless of size. Our strength as a global leader comes not from asserting dominance over smaller countries, but from building partnerships based on mutual respect and shared values. Incidents like this undermine that leadership and suggest America may not be the reliable partner we claim to be.

Conclusion: A Moment for Course Correction

The Billy Long controversy serves as a wake-up call about the importance of diplomatic professionalism and respect for international sovereignty. While Long has apologized, the damage to U.S.-Iceland relations may take time to repair. More importantly, this incident should prompt a serious examination of how America selects and prepares its diplomatic representatives.

True leadership in international affairs requires humility, respect, and understanding of the delicate balance of sovereignty that underpins the global order. America cannot effectively champion democracy and freedom abroad if our own representatives display disregard for the very principles we claim to uphold. This moment calls not just for an apology, but for a recommitment to diplomatic excellence and respect for our international partners.

As this situation continues to unfold, one thing remains clear: the world is watching how America handles this diplomatic misstep. Our response will speak volumes about whether we truly value the sovereignty of our allies or whether we still harbor colonial-era attitudes inconsistent with 21st-century leadership. The choice is ours, and the consequences will reverberate far beyond our relationship with Iceland.