Harry Truman, the president of the United States, proposed to buy Greenland in 1946 for $100,000,000 in gold. He recognized its strategic value in early Cold War.
Offer rejected
Donald Trump revived the idea in 2019 by framing it “as a large real-estate deal.”
As Trump is preparing to return to the White House he’s stepped up his rhetoric. He has suggested military force and economic pressure in order to control Greenland.
This proposal, which has been criticized around the world, reflects the increasing importance of the Arctic to global geopolitics.
Why is Greenland such a valuable place?
Greenland, however, is not your average island. Greenland is the biggest island in the world. It covers over 2.1 millions square kilometers.
The position of the United States between North America, Europe and Asia places it in the center of transatlantic relations.
The US early warning system for ballistic missiles is dependent on this location because it’s the most direct route between continents for air and missile travel.
Climate change has made it possible to navigate more easily through the Arctic.
Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route will reduce shipping times globally, giving Arctic countries a major economic advantage.
Greenland, for the US is more than a border. It’s also a buffer zone. The Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Aero Base, is the most northern US military outpost.
The installation is critical in providing missile defence, satellite communication, and monitoring Russian military activity.
Mineral reserves in Greenland are also a draw.
In 2023, a survey found 25 out of 34 raw materials critical on the island. These included rare earth elements (REE), lithium and graphite.
The materials used in these products are vital for the manufacture of renewable energy, military equipment, and batteries.
Rare Earths are essential for advanced electronic devices, such as electric cars, wind turbines and electronics.
Greenland has a wealth of hydrocarbons, minerals and other natural resources. These are largely untapped but offer a great opportunity. Resource extraction, however, is controversial.
Many projects have been stalled by environmental concerns and indigenous opposition.
Who is the owner of Greenland
Greenland is a territory that belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark.
Denmark controls foreign affairs and the defense of Denmark, but Denmark is responsible for its own domestic affairs.
Greenland can declare its independence by referendum since 2009.
The calls for independence have grown, fueled by historic grievances such as colonial policies, like forced birth-control campaigns against Greenlandic woman.
The Prime Minister Mute Ede said that there could be a referendum within the decade.
Independence for the island would not be easy.
Greenland is dependent heavily on Danish subsides, accounting for around half its budget public (EUR600 millions annually).
The island’s main industry of fishing, however, is not large enough to compensate for this loss.
Greenland would have to find alternative arrangements for financial support and defence if it were to become independent.
US economic assistance in exchange for agreements on strategic matters could be a major role.
Many Greenlanders, however, are wary about becoming dependent on the US, and value their independence as well as their Indigenous heritage.
Trump’s renewed Interest
Donald Trump is motivated by more than just economic concerns in his latest bid to buy Greenland.
The issue has been reframed by his administration as one of national security.
Trump claims that Greenland’s control is crucial to countering the growing influence of Russian and Chinese in the Arctic.
Both nations are increasing their activity in the Arctic: Russia, with its military bases there and China, with its investment and Arctic shipping aspirations.
Trump’s rhetoric has now changed from transactional–treating Greenland as a “real estate deal”–to strategic.
The administration of President Obama has proposed a variety of ideas, from the outright purchase or economic incentives to Greenland’s possible independence.
Trump’s threats to use military power or impose tariffs and economic sanctions on Denmark show his resolve, but they have also been widely criticized.
Can Trump really buy Greenland?
Donald Trump’s desire to control Greenland hinges on the following three possible paths: A direct purchase, Compact of Free Associations (COFAs), or a larger military presence.
Although bold on paper, all options come with legal, diplomatic and political challenges.
Greenland would need to be independent of Denmark before it could be purchased, similar to Alaska and the Philippines during earlier US history. Denmark may not have the legal right or authority necessary for the sale.
A sale of Greenland would still require the approval of its people who, in turn, have rejected Trump’s proposal repeatedly.
COFAs, like the US agreements with Micronesia or the Marshall Islands could permit Greenland formal independence, while still allowing the US access to exclusive military and financial resources.
The option would be in line with Greenland’s desire for independence, but it will require additional measures to prevent perceptions of neocolonialism.
If neither ownership or COFA are viable options, Trump may push for a larger military presence by enhancing US operations in the Pituffik Space Base, as well as establishing additional Arctic installations.
The approach could bypass the sovereignty dispute but alienate Greenlanders, Denmark and other countries.
Critics claim that the approach is similar to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, and it could lead to escalation of a similar scale.
Reactions of NATO and Europe
Trump’s rhetoric sparked strong reactions among European leaders.
Mette Fredericksen, Danish prime minister has reiterated Greenland’s independence and that it is not up for sale.
Germany and France condemned Trump’s threat, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz describing them as a violation to international law.
Jean-Noel Barrot, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs has issued a warning against any threats to European sovereignty. He compared them with a return to “the law of the stronger.”
In a similar vein, the European Union confirmed that Denmark can invoke Article 42.7 of the EU Mutual Assistance Clause in case it is attacked.
NATO is yet to comment on Trump’s threat against an ally, but his threats undermine NATO’s unity, especially as the alliance faces challenges due to Russia’s aggressive actions in Ukraine.
Trump’s Plans Challenged
The purchase of land or the forced acquisition is a highly contentious issue under international law.
Although the US had a long history of expanding its territory, including the purchase of Alaska by the US in 1867. Such actions are now mostly taboo.
A unilateral US move would be met with significant diplomatic repercussions and destabilize the transatlantic relationship.
Greenlanders are strongly opposed to US control.
Trump’s proposed policies are seen by many as a direct threat to autonomy and culture.
Any US attempt to gain control of Greenland would be political and diplomatically unsustainable without the population’s support.
What is next for Greenland
Arctic no longer is a frontier of frozen ice. The melting ice has transformed the Arctic into a global hotspot.
The Russian military has invested heavily in Arctic infrastructure including nuclear-powered icebreakers and bases.
China has expressed its interest in this region, even though it is a state “near the Arctic.” It wants to access resources and shipping lanes.
Greenland is facing an uncertain future. Greenland’s independence movement has gained momentum but the economic reality is still a major obstacle.
US financial assistance and security assurances could be offered to an independent Greenland through the Compact of Free Association.
A deal of this kind would grant the US military exclusive access to Greenland while still allowing it to retain its formal independence.
Trump’s aggressive rhetoric could alienate both Greenlanders as well as European allies.
To play a positive role in Greenland, the US must respect Greenland’s sovereignty. It also needs to offer benefits that go beyond its military interest.
Mette Fredericksen, the Danish prime minister, has called recently for direct discussions with Trump to discuss his increasingly aggressive rhetoric against Greenland.
Frederiksen emphasized the importance of maintaining strong US-Denmark relations while reinforcing that Greenland belongs to “the Greenlanders.”
Frederiksen is confident that a dialogue will take place after Trump’s inauguration on January 20, even though Trump hasn’t yet replied to her invitation.
Greenland’s future may rest ultimately on the aspirations of its citizens, but the US approach to this Arctic powerplay will reveal much more than its Arctic ambitions.
What is the reason for Trump wanting Greenland in this post? As the geopolitical play unfolds, it may change.
