{"id":267,"date":"2025-01-11T16:06:44","date_gmt":"2025-01-11T16:06:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/2025\/01\/11\/the-real-danger-of-trumps-greenland-gambit-vox-com\/"},"modified":"2025-01-11T16:06:44","modified_gmt":"2025-01-11T16:06:44","slug":"the-real-danger-of-trumps-greenland-gambit-vox-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/2025\/01\/11\/the-real-danger-of-trumps-greenland-gambit-vox-com\/","title":{"rendered":"The real danger of Trump\u2019s Greenland gambit – Vox.com"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

It is an era of superpower conflict and competition for natural resources. Newly accessible sea routes are transforming the world\u2019s political geography. The US government eyes a strategically located island territory, currently under the control of the Kingdom of Denmark, which Washington believes is necessary for its national security and economic interests. After first making an offer to buy the territory \u2014 one rejected by Copenhagen \u2014 the US suggests that it won\u2019t rule out the use of military force to take it. The Danes, in response, grudgingly take the deal. <\/p>\n

The year is 1915 and the territory in question is the Danish West Indies, known today as the US Virgin Islands<\/a>. In the wake of the sinking of the passenger ship Lusitania<\/a> by German submarines, President Woodrow Wilson\u2019s administration wanted control of the Caribbean islands out of fear they could be annexed by Germany, and used as a base to attack shipping through the recently opened Panama Canal. That deal \u2013 which was finalized in 1917 for $25 million<\/a>, or a bit less than $600 million in today\u2019s money \u2014 was the last major territorial purchase by the United States.<\/p>\n

Such territorial acquisitions were a relatively common practice in the age of overseas empires, but are nearly unheard of today. This musty topic, though, is unexpectedly back in the news, thanks to President-elect Donald Trump\u2019s very public coveting of Greenland<\/a>: another Danish-administered island.<\/p>\n

\n

Trump first publicly discussed the idea of the United States purchasing the world\u2019s largest island<\/a> back in 2019, during his first term. The idea was rejected out of hand by the government of Denmark at the time, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen saying she \u201chope[s] that this is not meant seriously<\/a>.\u201d Trump canceled a visit to Denmark<\/a> in response. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

How serious Trump is now is known to him alone, but he has not let the idea go as he prepares to return to the White House. In December, in a social media post announcing his pick of PayPal co-founder Ken Howery to serve as ambassador to Denmark, Trump posted<\/a>, \u201cFor purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

The Greenland proposal comes alongside Trump repeated is-he-joking-or-isn\u2019t-he suggestions that Canada be made the \u201c51st state\u201d<\/a> and demands that Panama return control<\/a> of the Panama Canal \u2014 altogether, an agenda for territorial expansion on a level not seen since the James K. Polk administration<\/a> in the mid-19th century. The Republican-led House Foreign Affairs Committee posted on X then deleted<\/a> a post praising Trump\u2019s plans for Greenland and Panama, writing that it\u2019s \u201cun-American to be afraid of big dreams.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Things got more serious on Tuesday at a press conference at Mar-a-Lago when Trump refused to rule out<\/a> using \u201cmilitary or economic coercion\u201d to take Greenland or the canal. (Canada, it seems, is off the hook for military force but not economic.) Also this past week, the president-elect\u2019s son, Donald Trump Jr., visited Greenland<\/a> for a brief and heavily-documented stopover. <\/p>\n

Now that the president-elect of the United States has refused to rule out military force against a NATO ally in Denmark, European leaders clearly no longer find this funny. Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany posted on X<\/a>, \u201cBorders must not be moved by force\u201d \u2014 the sort of admonition usually used against Russia and China. <\/p>\n

Even if we take Trump entirely at his word that he is serious about this and will make it a priority, the acquisition of Greenland is extremely unlikely to happen. But perhaps inadvertently, Trump has highlighted some thorny issues about geopolitics in a rapidly transforming and geopolitically important Arctic, and the suddenly contested borders of what had seemed like a settled world map. <\/p>\n

\n

\n

Greenland\u2019s political status, explained<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Greenland, an 836,000-square-mile island mostly covered by ice, has been under Danish rule since the 18th century, except for a period of German occupation during World War II followed by brief US protectorate. As Trump has pointed out, President Harry Truman made an offer<\/a> (rebuffed by the Danes) to take permanent control of Greenland after the war. <\/p>\n

But Greenland is also not simply property that Denmark could sell at will. In recent decades, Greenland\u2019s population, which is nearly 90 percent Inuit, has been moving gradually toward full independence. Greenland attained<\/a> home rule, including its own parliament, in 1979, and took on even greater political autonomy following a 2008 referendum<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Greenland now has its own prime minister, domestic laws, and court system. Its foreign and security policies are still dictated from Copenhagen, although Greenland is seeking more autonomy<\/a> on those issues as well. In a New Year\u2019s speech, made in the context of Trump\u2019s remarks, Greenland Prime Minister M\u00fate Egede suggested the time may have come to move more quickly<\/a> toward independence. <\/p>\n

The Greenland Self-Government Act<\/a>, passed in 2009, stipulates that if the people of Greenland decide to move toward full independence, they will enter into negotiations with Denmark on making that happen. The push for independence has been coupled with a historical reckoning over colonial-era practices including the removal of Greenlandic children from their families<\/a> to be raised by Danes. \u201cGreenlanders are very tired of being, in a sense, treated like second-class citizens or like teenagers that are not really responsible for their actions,\u201d said Ulrik Pram Gad, a senior researcher on Arctic issues at the Danish Institute of Security Studies. <\/p>\n

On the other hand, there are also reasons why full independence hasn\u2019t happened yet. For one thing, while Greenland would be one of the biggest countries in the world by land area (it\u2019s larger than Mexico), it would be one of the world\u2019s smallest by population with just 57,000 people (less than the capacity of an NFL football stadium). And that population is only shrinking<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Despite some painful history, many Greenlanders also have close family and cultural ties to Denmark. The island also receives about $500 million per year in social welfare payments from the Danish state, and Greenlanders have access to free medical care and free tuition at Danish universities. (All of which is to say, Puerto Rico-like status in Trump\u2019s America might be a tough sell for a people used to the generous Nordic welfare state.)<\/p>\n

Of course, Greenland independence could become a lot more viable if the territory, which is currently reliant mainly on fishing for income<\/a>, developed more independent sources of wealth. Which is where Trump\u2019s interest in the place comes in.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

Treasure beneath the ice <\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

It\u2019s not entirely clear when Trump decided that control of Greenland is an \u201cabsolute necessity,\u201d for US national interests, but one theory, reported by the New York Times<\/a> back in 2021, was that it came after a briefing at the White House by Greg Barnes, an Australian minerals prospector who has long touted Greenland\u2019s mining potential. (Cosmetics heir Ronald Lauder, an old friend of Trump\u2019s, also seems to have pushed the idea<\/a>.) Greenland has substantial reserves of metals like lithium, niobium, and zirconium<\/a>, which are used for producing batteries, as well as rare earth elements that are considered vital for the green energy transition, but which China currently enjoys a near monopoly over<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Greenland\u2019s Arctic climate and geology make it a difficult place to extract these materials \u2014 there are currently only two active mines<\/a> on the island \u2014 but as the ice sheet covering 80 percent of Greenland melts<\/a>, the idea is that they will become more accessible. (There\u2019s something a bit perverse about the notion of Greenland\u2019s shrinking glaciers, which could raise global sea levels by 20 feet if they melted entirely, as a solution<\/em> to climate change.) This has attracted interest and investments from a number of mining companies and governments, including China \u2014 likely another reason for Trump\u2019s interest<\/a>. These projects have also encountered local resistance: In 2021, Greenland\u2019s parliament passed legislation banning uranium mining<\/a> and halting a major rare earths mining project. <\/p>\n

On the less climate-friendly side, the US Geological Survey has also estimated that Greenland may have as many as 31 billion barrels of oil, though no oil has actually been found despite nearly 50 years of exploration, and the government ended exploration in 2021<\/a>, citing environmental concerns.<\/p>\n

In an era of rising great power tension, governments around the world are also increasingly looking at the Arctic as an area of strategic importance and competition<\/a>. Part of this is the region\u2019s potential mineral reserves. Part of it is shipping routes<\/a> that have become newly navigable thanks to melting Arctic Sea ice. <\/p>\n

Russia, which generates much of its GDP from oil and gas extracted above the Arctic circle, has taken a particular interest in the region. Under President Vladimir Putin, the Russian government has reopened 50 previously shuttered Soviet-era military bases<\/a> in the area. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Arctic has seen alleged \u201cgray zone\u201d <\/a>attacks by Russia against telecommunications infrastructure and an increasing number of close encounters by military aircraft<\/a>. Geopolitical tensions in the Arctic have only grown since Russia\u2019s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. <\/p>\n

China, which describes itself as a \u201cnear-Arctic state<\/a>\u201d even though it is nearly a thousand miles away from the Arctic Circle at its closest point, has been increasing its economic and military assets in the region as well. Critics say the US, an Arctic power thanks to Alaska \u2014 another old territorial purchase \u2014 has been slow to respond to these developments: case in point, the US currently has only has one operational icebreaker in its fleet<\/a> and likely won\u2019t have a new one until the 2030s. <\/p>\n

The Arctic\u2019s geopolitical importance is also a reason why Denmark (as well as the European Union) would be reluctant to part with Greenland. Thanks to Greenland, Denmark is not only 50 times bigger than it would be otherwise, it is also the only European Union country with an Arctic coastline. (Arctic Norway is not an EU member.) This gives it a seat on the Arctic Council<\/a> and a say on issues involving an increasingly contested region of the world. \u201cThere has been a kind of Greenland card, which has made Denmark more important security-wise than a standard, small European country,\u201d Gad said. <\/p>\n

It should be noted that none of the reasons why Greenland is strategically important for the United States explain why it needs to be part of <\/em>the United States. American companies, including a new mining venture backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos<\/a>, are already investing in Greenland\u2019s minerals. The US also already has a military base in the country: Pituffik Space Base<\/a>, formerly known as Thule Air Base, is both the northernmost US military base in the world and a key node in America\u2019s missile early warning system<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The US benefits from Greenland being under the jurisdiction of a friendly NATO ally: In 2017, the Danish government blocked an effort by a Chinese mining company<\/a> to acquire an abandoned military base in Greenland, in part out of a desire to maintain good relations with the US. These are the sort of relations that are potentially threatened by publicly musing about annexing territory by force. <\/p>\n

\n

\n

Trump\u2019s world of real estate<\/h2>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

It\u2019s worth briefly considering just why <\/em>Trump\u2019s Greenland idea seems so bizarre. The United States acquired more than half of its current land mass<\/a> by paying for it through transactions like the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaska Purchase, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo<\/a>, under which Mexico ceded the territory for much of what became the American West. It was once relatively common for countries to trade, say, the north sea island of Heligoland for the African archipelago of Zanzibar, as Britain and Germany did in 1890<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Britain acquired Bombay (now Mumbai) from Portugal as part of a wedding dowry<\/a> for the marriage of a Portuguese princess to King Charles II. (Barron Trump is probably safe from being married off to a Danish princess as part of a deal, but never say never.)<\/p>\n

\n

Borders are still sometimes redrawn by agreement these days: Tajikistan ceded some mountainous territory<\/a> to China in 2011, India and Pakistan have exchanged<\/a> some left over border enclaves, but they\u2019re rare and the territories in question are usually pretty small. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n

The main reason why the market for national sovereignty isn\u2019t what it used to be is probably that while much of the world\u2019s landmass was once covered by colonial empires, it is now mostly covered by sovereign nation-states, in which citizens have some expectation of sovereignty \u2014 which includes the right to not simply be sold off to the highest bidder. <\/p>\n

Greenland\u2019s political status makes it something of a holdover in this regard, but that doesn\u2019t mean its people and leaders \u2014 who\u2019ve been steadily moving toward greater political independence \u2014 will simply acquiesce to being treated as an imperialist bargaining chip. \u201cWe are a proud Indigenous people with a right to self-determination and not some sort of good that can be traded,\u201d Aaja Chemnitz, a member of Greenland\u2019s parliament, told NBC News<\/a>. <\/p>\n

(Though Trump has claimed that the \u201cpeople of Greenland are \u2018MAGA<\/a>\u2019\u201d and will \u201cbenefit tremendously\u201d from US acquisition, it\u2019s not clear if he envisions them having any say in the matter.)<\/p>\n

As for Trump\u2019s refusal to rule out military force, wars of territorial conquest<\/a> are thankfully also a lot more rare than they used to be and a lot less likely to be successful. That\u2019s one reason why Russia\u2019s invasion and annexation of parts of Ukraine has been such a shock to the international system. <\/p>\n

At least since the days of Woodrow Wilson, US governments have \u2014 with some notable exceptions \u2014 had a bias toward preserving international borders<\/a> rather than redrawing them. But Trump, who broke from most of the international community by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights<\/a> and Moroccan control of Western Sahara<\/a> during his first term, clearly has a far more transactional view of borders and sovereignty than the last century of American presidents. Describing his Greenland plan, the former developer has compared it to a real estate deal<\/a>: \u201c\u201cI look at a corner, I say, \u2018I\u2019ve got to get that store for the building that I\u2019m building,\u2019 etc. It\u2019s not that different,\u201d he told reporters interviewing him for a book <\/a>at the end of his first term.<\/p>\n

The risk of treating the world map like a game of Risk<\/a>, even just in rhetoric, is not merely that it strains relations with US allies. It\u2019s that it could validate territorial claims by US enemies. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s hardly surprising that Russian pundits and politicians have taken a keen interest in Trump\u2019s Greenland plans<\/a>. As The Economist\u2019s Shashank Joshi writes<\/a>, \u201cIf the next US government normalises the idea of absorbing territory by force \u2026 it makes it more likely that China will believe that the US will ultimately stand aside during an invasion of Taiwan.\u201d<\/p>\n

Back in 2014, when Russia first annexed Crimea, then Secretary of State John Kerry scoffed<\/a>, \u201cYou just don\u2019t in the 21st century behave in 19th-century fashion by invading another country on a completely trumped-up pretext.\u201d Now, it appears, it\u2019s the US that wants to take the world back to the age of empires. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It is an era of superpower conflict and competition for natural resources. Newly accessible sea routes are transforming the world\u2019s political geography. The US government eyes a strategically located island territory, currently under the control of the Kingdom of Denmark, which Washington believes is necessary for its national security and economic interests. After first making […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":268,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-267","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=267"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/268"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wpinitiate.com\/echo-test\/demo973e36f5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}