‘The people (of Greenland) will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our Nation.’ —Donald J. Trump, January 2024
On Jan. 7, in a non-threatening commentary, Trump initially spoke of buying Greenland without specifics on his tact for acquiring two other countries: Panama and Canada. This past week at a press conference, Trump shifted to harsh, warning commentary — he would, if necessary, use military and/or economy force on the three countries he wishes to acquire. Panama has no military, just a police force. Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark, a member of NATO. Trump indicated that our neighbor Canada would only be in line for economic corrections.
Initially, Trump had been clear that he wanted to buy Greenland. This monster of an idea wasn’t new with Trump. For a hundred and sixty years plus some American of stature has pressed for this acquisition. In 1867, it was considered by Secretary of State William Seward to annex Greenland with Iceland while he negotiated the purchase of Alaska from Russia. In 1910, an exchange of Greenland for U.S. territories was proposed. In 1946, at the close of WWII, an offer was made to Denmark by Secretary of State James Brynes, the $100 million in gold bullion offer was rejected. In 1917, the U.S. did successfully purchase from Denmark the Danish West Indies — renamed the Virgin Islands — as strategic security for the newly constructed Panama Canal.
Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat), is the world’s largest island, three times the size of Texas, the northernmost undisputed point of land in the Arctic. Greenland is tricky, it is a large rock surface 80% covered by an ice sheet nearly 3,200 meters (2 miles) thick. In Greenland the energy resource is 81% renewables (100% renewables targeted by 2050). Although Greenland and its surrounding seas are rich in difficult-to-extract oil and gas, the government in 2021, banned all future oil and gas exploration. Greenlanders know the impacts of global warming.
Eighty-nine percent of Greenland’s population of 56,000 — its heritage and culture — is of Inuit descent, 7.5 % are Danes. Towns and cities are clustered along the ice-free southern island tip. Greenland, a Danish territory since 1380, became an autonomous territory in 2008, all Greenlanders are Danish citizens, all Greenlanders are EU (European Union) citizens.
Why Greenland — why sustained U.S. interest over a century and a half? Why heightened rhetoric about its acquisition? The U.S. isn’t hooked by the dominant fishing industry — 90% of Greenland’s current economy. Rather size, strategic location, proximity are long standing factors joined more recently by the presence of rare mineral and gem deposits.
Greenland’s location is key — always as a buffer for U.S. security in the North. More recently its location as a prime trade and transport advantage with waterways from Asia altered northward by the melting of the Arctic. Being the earth’s northernmost land point is advantageous for Greenland as ownership of the Arctic area fumes as an international debate among Russia, the U.S., Canada, Denmark, and Greenland over who owns the North Pole. With acquisition of Greenland, U.S. ownership positioning would be strengthened.
In 2020, Thule Air Base, operating in Greenland since WWII, was transferred to the United States Space Force, newly created in the previous Trump administration, and renamed Pituffik Space Station. This space v air base is described as housing missile warning systems along with space surveillance and control sensors. The U.S.’s northernmost military base has expanded its scope, upping its strategic importance.
The U.S. government, U.S. corporations and U.S. billionaires hold eyes and desires for Greenland. It doth promise to be a green, green land.
Why not Greenland?
‘Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long fight for freedom.’ —Múte Bourup Eged, Greenland PM
Without upscale pressures of force, Greenland doesn’t present as a receptive audience for acquisition particularly by the U.S. where capitalism holds sway and its diversity conscience is waning. Positioned in the Arctic where global warming is most advanced coupled with a dominant Inuit culture having experienced years of being “lesser” (unequal treatment, access and wages), an indigenous resistance to extractive capitalism is deep and active in Greenland. Oil and gas extraction is banned, renewables are the energy sources of choice.
In the past, Greenland’s icesheet shrank annually and was renewed annually with Arctic snows and cold. In recent years the ice shrinkage hasn’t been replaced, warming effects are threatening.
‘Ice in the West Antarctic and over Greenland, i.e., ice that’s over a rock at the moment, that will raise the level of the sea as it slides into the ocean, putting at risk everyone and everything that lives on the coasts, and includes an enormous percentage of the world’s people.’ — Bill McKibben
Some here may doubt warming impacts, some may snicker and some may recall recent photos of Americans along the Atlantic coast moving their homes back from a receded shoreline and struggling to obtain home insurance in areas susceptible to ever increasing storms eroding shorelines.
A brouhaha is brewing. It isn’t active, but it’s surprisingly aggressive, this rumbling of takeovers of nations who have been longtime neighbors and friends. Trump isn’t yet President, no real estate slam dunk has been proposed and accepted, no tariffs cited, there is not yet a Trump appointed Ambassador to Denmark — there’s a nominee to be confirmed. Trump has dispatched his crack negotiator, skilled Donald Trump Jr., recently for a private visit to Greenland perhaps to smooth talks, lay positive foundations for discussions. Perhaps these talks weren’t congenial.
Like other emerging policies and potential aggressive actions suggested by Trump or his forming administration, an acquisition of Greenland, by many possible means, shapes pathways for expanded access and new streams of money for many.
Kathy Herald-Marlowe lives in Sharon.
