Donald Trump has once again ignited debate over the potential purchase of Greenland, labeling it as "an absolute necessity" for U.S. national security. This renewal of interest from the president-elect, as he prepares to take office on January 20, 2024, echoes his previous, highly publicized attempts to acquire the world’s largest island during his first term. The recent announcement came alongside Trump’s presentation of Ken Howery as the U.S. ambassador to Denmark.
Greenland, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, operates with significant autonomy but remains under Danish control for foreign affairs, defense, and monetary policy. Múte Bourup Egede, the Prime Minister of Greenland, responded to Trump’s renewed ambition, asserting, "Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale," highlighting the island's commitment to its self-determination.
This isn't the first time such discussions have occurred. Back in 2019, Trump's inquiry over purchasing Greenland stirred international tensions, culminating in the cancellation of his planned visit to Denmark after the Danish government outright rejected the notion. During this recent announcement, Trump reiterated the geopolitical importance of Greenland, claiming, "For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity." His statement is not just rhetoric; it’s indicative of the U.S. strategic interests within the Arctic region, especially with global shipping routes becoming increasingly pivotal.
The Arctic region, encompassing Greenland, is experiencing accelerating geopolitical significance. Climate change is opening up new passages, prompting nations to vie for control over these increasingly accessible areas, characterized by natural resources such as rare minerals and oil. Greenland’s vast natural resources could potentially serve as significant assets for the U.S. economy, should ownership shift.
Historically, the U.S. has shown interest in acquiring territories through purchases. For example, Alaska was bought from Russia for $7.2 million, and the Louisiana Purchase was concluded for $15 million. These acquisitions provide relevant precedent, illustrating how past U.S. administrations have navigated territorial expansions. Indeed, the idea of purchasing Greenland, as speculative as it may be, would follow through another series of complex negotiations involving both Denmark and Greenland, each of which maintains strong stances against relinquishing control.
Experts argue underlining Trump's claims to acquire Greenland lies both with the island’s resources and its strategic location. Former Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has firmly remarked, "Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland," countering the idea with the island's cultural significance and self-governance.
Through support of locals, the self-rule expanded by the 2009 Self-Government Act signifies the island's strong desire for autonomy, evidenced by Greenlandic being recognized as the island's official language. This cultural assertion adds another layer to the ownership debate. Greenlanders have voiced concerns about becoming mere assets for U.S. interests, stating emphatically their resistance against trading their land or identity.
Internationally, opinions vary on Trump's pursuit. Some analysts view it as part of his broader strategy of asserting American dominance and re-negotiation of historical rental agreements, such as the Panama Canal's use for U.S. shipping needs, particularly as global shipping costs have surged recently. Trump previously suggested reclaiming control of the canal, infuriated by high fees imposed on shippers.
Such comments highlight the precarious nature of relations between Trump and other allied nations. By indicating potential territorial claims over Greenland, Panama, and even discussing Canada's status as the 51st U.S. state, he is diversifying his diplomatic strategy with both allies and adversaries alike. Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called Trump's comments about annexation jocular, countering any real concern of U.S. territorial claims over Canadian land.
Meanwhile, as Trump attempts to solidify his narratives, he faces strong checks on feasibility and legality. Purchase of Greenland remains hypothetical at best, with no clear consensus or will among Greenlanders to trade their land, and Denmark’s adamant refusal to engage on the issue adds significant barriers.
Though Trump may feel justified by historic precedents and the promise of economic boosts, it does not negate the legal and ethical dimensions of such acquisitions. Both Denmark and Greenlandian officials are expected to assert their rights over the island definitively, as international laws and histories of past acquisitions come under scrutiny.
Notably, regardless of the renewed interest or Trump’s diplomatic posturing, Greenland has found its own identity and governance. It continually engages with the world on its terms, reinforcing its stance of independence and self-determination amid external pressures. The colorful narrative surrounding this renewed acquisition interest only amplifies as Greenland retains its place on the international stage, illustrating resilience against perceived commodification.
