trump-revives-greenland-bid-with-strategic-economic-goals

The 45th president of the United States Donald Trump tried buying the territory of Greenland some years back and was widely ridiculed for such a proposal. 

 

His attempts at it yielded nothing, except for the usual delaying and denying state visit to Denmark. But now, six years later, the issue is back on the tray as Trump makes a new "bid" for the largest island in the world.

 

And it comes with renewed rigor. In an interview on January 7, incoming US president rejected the possibility of using any force to take possession of Greenland and on January 8, 2025, dispatched his son, Don Jr, "and various representatives" to underscore the seriousness of the matter. With Elon Musk on board as well, money may not be an obstacle to any deal that Trump envisages.

 

Trump is not the first person in politics to try to buy Greenland. The earliest mention is of acquiring Greenland dating back to 1868.

 

The last serious pre-Trump effort came from President Harry S Truman's administration in 1946. Trump therefore came in for renewed interest in Greenland as a continuation of a long tradition of American attempts toward territorial expansion.

 

Guy would have known it from history but Trump's latest bid has less irrationality today than it appeared back in 2019. On the one hand, the said island is unusually rich in so-called "critical minerals." According to a report published by the Economist in 2024, Greenland is known to have deposits of 43 out of these 50 minerals. According to the US Department of Energy, such minerals are crucial to technologies that "produce, transmit, store, and conserve energy" and have "high risk of supply chain disruption".

 

Indeed, the latter part of this statement remains valid, with China-a significant supplier of critical minerals to the global market-turning its restrictions against further exports as part of a trade war with the US. Gaining access to the resources within Greenland would leave Washington with an elevated security of its supply chain.

 

Strategic Importance

As for the US, indeed, a well-placed Greenland is a source of strategic value. It has, in fact, an existing US base, the Pituffik Space Base, which for the US plays an important role in missiles early warning and defense as well as space surveillance. Future expansion plans for the site could increase US capacity to control Russian naval movements on the Arctic Ocean and North Atlantic.

 

US sovereignty over Greenland, if Trump's deal proceeds, would also presumably herald the end of any moves by rivals seeking a foothold on the island-and mainly China. Less of a concern probably under this would be the case if Greenland remains under the umbrella of Nato member Denmark, which has kept the island financially afloat with an annual grant of around US$ 500 million (about £407 million).

 

Growing support for independence for Greenland can further open the doors to more foreign investment, without stringent regulations, and in the case of China, it would probably be the first to go in should a chance of such an opportunity arise.

 

In fact, add to that the growing security cooperation between Russia and China and that Russia has been even more aggressive militarily, and Trump's case looks even more credible. Indeed, he does not stand alone in raising alarm bells: Canada, Denmark, and Norway have recently pushed back against an ever-increasing Russian and Chinese footprint in the Arctic.

 

So, the problem with Trump's proposition is not that it is based on a fallacious diagnosis regarding the underlying issue it purportedly addresses. Growing Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic generally constitutes a security problem at this time of increased geopolitical rivalry. Greenland poses, therefore, an undeniably specific and significant security vulnerability for the United States.

The arguments for Trump's plan

His "America first" vision for seeking a solution is perhaps the biggest obstacle. The fact that he says he wants Greenland and that he will get it-his even mentioning punitive tariffs on Danish exports (think Novo Nordisk's weight loss drugs) or using force for it-really doesn't matter to him.

 

Of course, these new "offers" were rejected by Greenland and Denmark. More importantly, major allies like France and Germany came rushing to their ally's defence, not physically yet.

 

Instead of strengthening American security, it seems that Trump's act is actually very much weakening it by yet another undermining of the Western alliance. Besides, that seems to be lost on Trump that this is actually taking place in the north Atlantic. It seems, however, that there is an even deeper problem involved in that this kind of nineteenth-century-style territorial expansionism comes from Trump's evacuation.

 

"Annexation" of Greenland most likely insulates Washington from critical mineral supply chain disruptions, and shores up Russia and China on the outside. And it clearly indicates he will do it at great costs. This will remind one, beyond the usual bluster or bombast that typically accompanies Trump, that foreign policy would leave no room at all for gloves.

 

Rather than strengthening security cooperation with Denmark and the rest of its Nato and European allies to handle Russia and China in the Arctic and beyond, Trump and his team probably think that the United States can get away with it. This gamble is astronomical because it risks relations with some of the closest allies the United States has ever had.

 

There are no great powers in history that can go it alone for eternity — and even acquiring Greenland in flesh or blood is likely to go in this same vein.

 

via The Conversation