Why the United States SHOULD take Greenland

By: Ed Watkins

This article is written in tandem with the opposing perspective.

As the international climate surrounding a 410,000 km land mass of ice in the Arctic gets heated, with US President, Trump, launching tariffs, issuing threats and seemingly laying claim to a land of which America has no say. It begs the question: Why does Trump and the USA believe they have a right to claim Greenland? While Trump’s tactics are beyond tact, the USA does have a history with Greenland and claims to occupy it aren’t without precedent. Similarly, Greenland’s current state, as a territory and colony of Denmark’s, also raises the hypocrisy of their refutes against the US’s claims. Furthermore, there are logically sound arguments surrounding the US’s military capacity comparative to Denmark’s. So, while Trump’s attitude towards Greenland is diplomatically idiotic, and the arguments the Republican’s put forth questionable, this does not negate possible arguments validating America’s claim to Greenland.

America’s claim on Greenland is not without precedent, and historic interest in Greenland is neglected by the media in favour of relating the issue solely to Trump.

America has, for all its history, expanded its borders through purchasing lands from other countries: in 1803 it acquired the Louisiana territory from France, in 1898 it acquired Puerto Rico. Thus, giving historic reason for America’s drive to acquire Greenland. America’s interest in Greenland itself, similarly, is not without precedent as the United States has made several attempts to acquire Greenland throughout history; in 1867 after purchasing Alaska, America expressed interest in Greenland. Similarly, in 1946 President Truman offered Denmark $100 million for Greenland. Whether or not these prior interests grant any more conviction to America’s claims is debatable, but it is important to separate America’s longstanding interest in the territory from Trump’s erratic threats associated with the interest. Another aspect of America’s interest in Greenland that is overlooked in favour of sensationalist news, is that America is not hard-line insistent on full ownership but rather, American officials, following talks with Denmark, compared the concept of American presence on the island, to the United Kingdom’s bases in Cyprus, with wider officials confirming the idea for Greenland was modelled after the sovereign British bases in Cyprus. This side of the negotiations frames the interest as purely strategic, to ensure American military presence to defend Europe and Greenland.

American defence of Europe is evident through America’s active role in Greenland’s military history. Americans utilise the example that hundreds of American lives were lost defending Greenland in 1943 compared to a “single Danish life lost defending Greenland.” Moreover, Americans call upon the fact that Denmark’s surrender to Nazi Germany in 1940 left Greenland defenceless, leading to the US setting up multiple bases on the island during the war. America’s active historic role in Greenland’s defence provides valid arguments regarding Greenland’s current security, especially considering Denmark fell to Nazi Germany within six hours and US intervention was decisive for Europe’s survival in World War 2. This perpetuates the argument that if America had a stake in Greenland, then Europe’s security will be more robust than it currently is by Denmark. America’s defence of Europe against Chinese and Russian threats has been a focal point to America’s incentive, as negotiations between Denmark, Greenland and the United States will go forward aimed at protecting against Russian and Chinese advances both economically and militarily in Greenland, or the wider Arctic. This is increasingly important for Europe and NATO as China has plans for influence in the Arctic; from ‘shipping routes, scientific research, and resource access’. With Russia equally as determined to establish a foothold in the Arctic through Greenland.

While America’s claims to Denmark are debated, it is repeatedly overlooked that Denmark is the colonial controller of Greenland, who ignore the Inuit population, and neglect Greenland’s opinions in negotiations; thereby furthering America’s case for ownership against Denmark claims of sovereignty. Highlighting this neglect in international policy, is how the Greenland government argues, NATO has no mandate to negotiate anything without the Greenlander, the rallying call being, “Nothing about us, without us.” Some Greenlanders feel that the Danish government should let Greenland lead its foreign policy, and even Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, suggested they meet with the US alone. The hostile reception to America’s advances on Greenland is fuelled by hypocrisy, and in fact, if Greenland were to control their own foreign policy more negotiations between the US and Greenland would take place

Overall, America has a foothold in the defence of Greenland due to historic examples of US protection being more effective than Denmark’s, furthering the argument that America should ‘take’ Greenland to ensure Europe and NATO’s protection from Russia and Chine. Moreover, Denmark’s reluctance to negotiate America’s interest in Greenland exposes hypocrisy, especially considering the Greenland government has expressed interest to enter discussions with the US one-on-one. So while America shouldn’t forcibly ‘take’ Greenland, valid arguments do exist for an increased American presence in the region.

Image: Flickr