The Revere

By: Henry Zimmerman

Donald Trump’s attempts at securing the North may prove to be counterproductive.

“Let me put it in words you might understand: Mr. Trump, F‑‑‑  off.” The fight over Greenland’s future elicits strong feelings on both sides of the Atlantic, exemplified by Danish representative Anders Vistisen’s response to US President Donald Trump’s ambitions. Donald Trump has been floating the idea of buying the resource-rich island of Greenland since his first term in office because of Greenland’s strategic importance. His efforts to gain control over the territory have been renewed as part of his combative second-term foreign policy agenda. Despite an offer likely worth tens of billions of dollars, Denmark, a US ally,  is not willing to come to the table with the island of 57,000 residents. Additionally, at a press conference in Florida, Trump stated that he refuses to rule out using economic coercion or military force if the Danish do not capitulate to his demands. Secretary of State Mark Rubio has justified these demands through the US’s defense obligations to Greenland through Denmark’s NATO membership. Greenland faces a tumultuous future. Melting ice, security concerns, plentiful natural resources, and a decades-long quest for independence are all now at the forefront of a test of US diplomacy in a changed world order.  

Greenland garners so much attention because of its unique strategic value. Lying in the Arctic Circle, the nation is the largest non-continental island in the world. During the Cold War, its strategic importance stemmed from its location on the potential path of Soviet ballistic missiles and its positioning on the northwest passage, a sea route that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. During World War II, the US built an air base in Greenland to bolster mainland air defense, which is now the Pituffik Space Base. After the war, America attempted to purchase the island from the Danish for 100 million dollars in Gold. Now, surveys of Greenland have found many of the rare earth elements the US needs to reduce dependence on China living under the ice. In addition, immense reserves of oil and natural gas likely exist offshore. However, mining in Greenland has proven to be exceedingly difficult and expensive. As the ice melts and the need for rare earth metals rises, more metal deposits may become viable. Still, it remains to be seen if Greenland can be mined profitably. With Russia’s expanding Arctic infrastructure and China’s polar accelerating Silk Road initiative positioned to take advantage of receding arctic ice, the north is once again in focus. Advantageous shipping routes that take half as much time as existing routes are opening up in the Arctic, and Russia has already started to expand into exclusive economic zones of NATO countries such as Norway. Greenland is the logical next step in a burgeoning boreal arms race.

However, a US Arctic hegemony that includes control over Greenland is far from inevitable. A key obstacle stands in the way of any US agreements with Denmark surrounding Greenland’s future: the Self-Government Act of 2008. Greenland’s independence movement successfully achieved this agreement with Denmark, including the option for an independence referendum. Currently, Greenlanders have control over their natural resources and the majority wish to be an independent sovereign nation. When Trump first proposed the purchase of Greenland in 2019,  Kim Kielson – the prime minister of Greenland at the time – responded with an enterprising counteroffer: Greenland, within the doctrine of finders-keepers, should instead buy Greenland. The pushback remains to this day, as 85 percent of Greenlanders don’t want to be part of the United States. Since first being colonized in the 1700s by Denmark, Denmark and Greenland have had a fraught relationship, mainly due to colonial abuses. Even though Greenland first gained self-governance in 1978, it remains reliant on Denmark for 20 percent of its GDP and 50 percent of its budget. Becoming a part of the United States could provide investment and much-needed vitality to Greenland’s economy in the form of military spending and lucrative resource extraction efforts, yet only 6 percent of its population supports joining the US. This may be due to the idea put forward by the Innuit Circumpolar Council that “there is no good colonizer,” which is supported by previous disputes over US actions at the air base.  

Acknowledging the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination, Denmark has rejected an outright sale. Instead, Danish politicians have walked the fine line between respecting Greenland’s independence and addressing legitimate security concerns concerning Greenland’s defense. They have chosen to respond to Trump’s criticism of Greenland’s “dog sled” defense with a commitment to invest 1.6 billion dollars in arctic security. This stance is supported by the highest military office of the European Council, which stated that “In my view, it would make perfect sense not only to station U.S. forces in Greenland, as has been the case to date, but also to consider stationing EU soldiers there in the future.” Ultimately, Denmark must be careful in its responses for fear of unintentionally driving Greenland further towards the US sphere of influence. 

While Greenland serves a strategic interest to the US, Trump’s ambitions and threats of belligerent conduct imperil US credibility on issues of sovereignty and global order. The situation threatens to shift international precedent, ultimately imperiling conflict resolution efforts in Ukraine and ‘red lines’ in Taiwan. Russia and China would be granted de facto cover for violations of sovereignty in Ukraine and potentially Taixwan, as well as many other places where they hold territorial ambitions if the inviolability of self-determinism is violated by the United States. By projecting the United States’ power stridently in Greenland, Trump is putting the inviolability of sovereignty at risk and thus increasing the risk of aggressive land grabs. 

Trump’s aggressive and standoffish diplomacy is unnecessary. The US already has the means to work with Denmark and its allies to secure its interests in the Arctic without purchasing Greenland. Greenland has shown a willingness to deal with the US in business and defense and has already rejected overtures by China and Russia alike. Buying the territory would additionally negatively impact the United States as feuds with NATO allies would only weaken the alliance of these countries with the US and potentially undermine attempts to increase European investment in the defense alliance.

The future of Europe will be reshaped by how current leaders respond to this event. Many in the European Union have stayed relatively silent about Trump’s threat of coercive tariffs, instead choosing to work behind the scenes to blunt Trump’s instigation. Will Europe unite to protect EU member Denmark against coercive measures by an allied superpower, or will it be fractured by self-interested responses to tariffs? Is protecting sovereignty in Greenland more important to the bloc than the fear of economic retaliation from its biggest trading partner? Either way, it remains to be seen whether Greenland will welcome an augmented American presence or spurn further militarization. Still, global Arctic ambitions have been fully revealed, with any further US military presence likely to elicit escalatory responses from Russia and China alike. It is now up to Greenlanders to see how far self-determination can take them. Ultimately, the future of Greenland will have the power to determine the fate of the EU, the US, as well as the Arctic Circle.