When Trump first broached the idea of the U.S. buying Greenland during his first term, the media treated it as a joke. It is clear now, however, that Trump himself is not laughing, and never has been. He is deadly serious, not just about Greenland, but about the Panama Canal, as well as, most likely, about Canada. When questioned on Tuesday about his designs on Greenland, Trump offered two reasons for why he thought it was in America’s interest to obtain the territory and even threatened Denmark if it didn’t comply.
Trump said that the U.S. needed Greenland as a matter of national security:
We need Greenland for national security purposes. I’ve been told that for a long time, long before I even ran, I mean, people have been talking about it for a long time. You have approximately 45,000 people there. People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up, because we need it for national security. That’s for the free world. I’m talking about protecting the free world. You look at — you don’t even need binoculars. You look outside, you have China, ships all over the place, you have Russian ships all over the place. We’re not lettin’ that happen. We’re not letting it happen.
Then came the threat to Denmark:
And if Denmark wants to, uh, get to a conclusion — but nobody knows if they even have any right title or interest, the people are gonna probably vote for independence, or to come into the United States. But if they did do that, then I would tariff Denmark at a very high level.
Leaving aside the question of whether or not Denmark really has any legal title over Greenland, Trump’s warning of tariffs was perfectly reasonable. Acquiring Greenland, he said, was a matter of “protecting the free world.” That includes Denmark, which, after all, was a founding member of NATO in 1949 and so relies on the United States for its security. Trump seems to be working from the premise that the security that the U.S. provides for Denmark should not be a one-way street and that the Danes, along with the other NATO countries, should be expected to do what was best for the entire alliance.
Trump left open the possibility of more than just tariffs. Regarding Greenland and the Panama Canal, a reporter asked him: “Can you assure the world that as you try to get control of these areas, you are not gonna use military or economic coercion?” Trump answered flatly: “No.” He explained: “I can’t assure you. You’re talking about Panama and Greenland. No, I can’t assure you on either of those two. But, uh, I can say this: we need them for economic security.”
So America needs Greenland for both national security and economic security. Is there any truth to this? Absolutely. Clingendael Research, a Dutch think tank that produces “state-of-the-art analyses and policy research in international affairs for governments, businesses and NGO's,” reported that “in 2018, the People’s Republic of China published its first Arctic strategy, claiming that the Middle Kingdom is a ‘near-Arctic state.’” It added that “it is quickly becoming clear that China has built a geostrategic presence in the Arctic that is not to be sniggered at. It is already reshaping circumpolar politics in fundamental ways.”
The report detailed intense Chinese activity in Greenland beginning in 2005 and noted that “the void created when Greenland was given greater autonomy [in 2009] from central authorities in the Kingdom of Denmark and subsequently left the EEC was happily filled by China. Even though the Kingdom of Denmark remains responsible for foreign policy and defence, Greenland can now conclude international agreements with foreign states on its own. This raises issues for both the Kingdom of Denmark and the EU.” Yet “While the Arctic rises in geopolitical and geo-economic significance, the EU has been slow to reconsider its strategic interests.”
Related: Canada, the Panama Canal, and Now Greenland. What’s Behind Trump’s Expansionist Rhetoric?
Donald Trump, however, has not. He appears to understand the strategic interests involved in Greenland better than most Western foreign policy analysts and is ready to counter the growing Chinese activity there. He knows that the Danes are both unable and unwilling to stand up to China. America will not be.
Trump’s position on Greenland, as derided and ridiculed as it has been, thus makes perfect sense from an America-First standpoint. Will he be able to convince the Danes — and a sufficient number of Americans — that his Greenland policy is sound and worth pursuing? That remains to be seen. Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredericksen has already reiterated Denmark’s position from Trump’s first term, that Greenland is not for sale. But this story is not over.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member