After the dizzying success in Venezuela, President Donald Trump feels emboldened to re-tighten America’s dominance over the Western hemisphere, including the icy island of Greenland. The news cycle on this story is the same as it was last year: more of Trump’s bullying antics, causing everyone (from Democrats to Republicans) to scratch their heads.
The problem isn’t Trump’s fixation on Greenland; the small island is more important than some of his critics think. Economically, it’s the site of potential sea trade routes that are gradually opening up as the Arctic melts. Greenland also contains rare-earth minerals, which will be important in helping America’s efforts to reduce its reliance on China. It is also a strategic military site for defending against potential missile attacks from Russia. Russia (and China) have invested much into the Arctic region with many bases and “research” vessels in the area. The U.S. should be more involved in Greenland while making efforts to deter adversaries of the U.S. and NATO from creeping into the region. Trump is correct in generating attention over Greenland and the evolving security situation in the Arctic.
However, the U.S. is already capable of being more involved. As many news organizations, U.S. politicians, security experts, and Danish officials have noted, the U.S. already has a longstanding agreement with Denmark that allows the U.S. to build bases on Greenland.
Trump’s problem is that he believes there is a significant difference between owning a territory and having a lease. Trump seems to fear Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic and Greenland so much that he wants to acquire Greenland, whether by purchasing it or annexing it through military force. However, adding Greenland to the U.S. is not worth it, regardless of the method Trump uses.
A hostile U.S. takeover of Greenland would cause NATO to break down. NATO would break down as the U.S. would undoubtedly conquer Greenland (the smaller Danish military could do little to oppose American military forces). However, it would weaken the U.S. presence and influence in Europe. A rift between the U.S. and Europe would only embolden Russia.
Despite the U.S. being the world’s superpower, it still needs the help of its European allies to take advantage of Greenland’s position. While the Arctic is melting, the ice there is still immensely thick, requiring specialized icebreakers to traverse the region. Russia currently has more icebreaker ships than the U.S. and its allies combined. While Trump has ordered the construction of icebreakers, the U.S. shipbuilding industry has struggled for years to build a single one. The U.S. needs allies like Finland, which borders the Arctic and has decades of expertise building icebreakers. Finland certainly can and wants to help the U.S. However, any potential cooperation would go down the drain if the U.S. alienated the Finns by invading the territory of a NATO ally.
Even if the U.S. peacefully purchased Greenland, it would not be worth it. U.S. possession of Greenland would mean the U.S. government would have to take over the current upkeep, which costs the Danish government ( nearly $1 billion in annual government subsidies). For all this upkeep, Greenland’s economy is nearly nonexistent and would provide minimal immediate benefit to the U.S. Even though Greenland contains precious minerals, it would take vast investments to build the necessary machinery to mine in Greenland’s frigid environment.
Currently, there is no headway in the conversation between American and Danish officials over Greenland. Denmark is unwilling to hand over its territory, while America believes that Denmark isn’t doing enough to protect the island from Russia and China. However, in recent weeks, Denmark has made multiple attempts to show its seriousness about cooperating with America and investing more in Greenland security. Nevertheless, Trump is unmoved. At the current rate, we may see another American military operation in the Western Hemisphere if Denmark doesn’t sell, which would be disastrous for everyone, except for America’s adversaries.
The ideal situation for everyone would be for Trump to drop all this nonsense about adding Greenland to the U.S. Instead, he should sit down with Danish officials to discuss additions to the established deal that not only reaffirm America’s right to build military bases, but also expand its rights to mine the area for the natural resources it needs. Also, it can include the Danish promise to continue developing its military presence on the island. Another solution could be having NATO allies close to the Arctic chip in money, troops, and supplies so the U.S. doesn’t have to spend so much on mundane tasks (such as supplying and protecting future Greenland bases). In fact, this sort of deal (where America establishes bases in other countries and defends U.S. interests through cooperating with allies) is how the U.S. exerts its influence and polices the world.
In essence, NATO and Denmark could serve as Greenland’s maintenance crew, freeing up American resources so that the U.S. can be “the spear” focused on securing Arctic trade routes, countering Russian and Chinese activities, and building crucial missile bases and defences to protect northern Europe and America. Working on Greenland and Arctic security issues with allies might not be as glamorous as adding Greenland as the 51st state (which Trump probably secretly wants), but it would undoubtedly be far more effective and efficient in securing the Arctic.