The Greenland Saga: A Tug-of-War in the Arctic
The icy expanse of Greenland, the world’s largest island, finds itself at the center of a geopolitical tug-of-war, pitting its current Prime Minister, Múte Bourup Egede, against the ambitions of former U.S. President Donald Trump. Egede has firmly declared that Greenland is not for sale, emphasizing its sovereignty and its people’s right to self-determination. Trump, however, appears intent on acquiring the strategically located Arctic territory, rich in minerals, potentially making it the 51st state of the United States.
Greenland’s relationship with Denmark dates back to the 19th century. While it possesses its own local government and parliament overseeing domestic affairs, crucial aspects like defense, national security, and the economy remain under the purview of policymakers in Copenhagen, over 2,000 miles away. Trump first expressed interest in buying Greenland during his initial term in office, and he has since refused to dismiss the possibility of employing economic or even military force to achieve his objective.
The issue of Greenland’s independence has been a subject of ongoing debate among its inhabitants. A potential national referendum, with Denmark’s consent, could pave the way for Greenland to become an independent nation. A parliamentary vote on March 11 will address this key issue. Despite consistent polls indicating a preference for independence among Greenlanders, there’s a strong desire to maintain the standard of living supported by Denmark’s welfare system.
Public sentiment in Greenland has overwhelmingly rejected the notion of becoming part of the United States. Prime Minister Egede, in a Facebook post, asserted the identity of the Greenlandic Inuit people, stating, "We don’t want to be Americans, nor Danes. We are Kalaallit."
The feasibility of the Trump administration purchasing Greenland from Denmark remains unclear, especially given Denmark’s repeated declarations that it is not for sale. There is no clear legal or commercial pathway for such a transaction. Historically, the United States acquired the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917.
A global risks consultancy, Wikistrat, has proposed scenarios for Greenland’s future. One scenario involves the U.S. leasing Greenland from Denmark for an extended period, similar to China’s lease of Hong Kong to Britain. Another suggests Greenland granting the U.S. "minority shares" in its governance, particularly in security and foreign policy, potentially requiring the U.S. to assume Denmark’s annual subsidies.
Trump’s use of tariffs as a policy tool raises the possibility of increased tariffs on Danish or EU goods to pressure Denmark into concessions regarding Greenland. The 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act could provide Trump with broad powers to raise tariffs under the guise of national and economic security, particularly concerning the increasing presence of Russia and China in the Arctic and the region’s rare earth mineral deposits.
While a U.S. invasion of Greenland is considered a remote possibility, it could trigger NATO’s Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all. However, the fact that both Denmark and the U.S. are NATO members complicates this situation.
Despite the talk of acquisition, Trump’s support for Greenland’s right to self-determination suggests the military option may be unlikely. Yet, his assertion that "One way or the other, we’re going to get it" underscores his determination. The possibility remains that Trump’s interest could wane, leading to no significant changes.
The United States already has a military presence in Greenland through the Thule Air Base. The U.S. could, with the permission of both Greenland and Denmark, enhance its military presence by deploying additional troops, upgrading missile defense systems, and building new Arctic infrastructure.
The unfolding Greenland saga highlights the delicate balance between national sovereignty, strategic interests, and the economic considerations that shape international relations. The future of Greenland hangs in the balance as it navigates these complex dynamics. The question of Greenland’s independence is far from resolved, and the population is clearly divided on how this should be handled. It seems the majority of the people support the idea, but a smaller majority also wants to be backed by Denmark financially. This makes the Greenland saga a very interesting one.
