Since the end of World War I, the U.S. has made numerous attempts to purchase Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. Being an autonomous territory means it is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. It falls under Danish sovereignty for foreign policy and defense while retaining the ability to self-govern. Despite the offers made in the past, Denmark has always turned down U.S. proposals to buy Greenland while preserving the diplomatic relationship between the two countries.
This trend continued when President Donald Trump expressed his desire to purchase Greenland in January. However, the recent stern denial from Danish President Mette Fredricksen has not deterred Trump’s fixation. Trump’s unwavering desire to forcefully acquire territory from a fellow North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) country is an egregious overreach of U.S. influence in the region.
NATO is a collective security agreement in which all members pledge to protect each other in the event of a military attack from a non-member nation. Article 5 of the treaty specifically states an attack on one member is an attack on all members, which raises the question of what happens when one member levies a threat against another member. While this may seem like an exaggeration, Trump has explicitly stated that he “thinks we’re going to have [Greenland,]” calling it an “absolute necessity” and even stating that “the people want to be with us,” which is simply untrue.
Contrary to Trump’s claims, only 6% of Greenland citizens want to join the U.S. Trump has not made any definitive statements about which method he intends to use to acquire Greenland, but he has not ruled out economic and military force, which shows Trump’s disregard for the spirit of NATO.
During Trump’s unabated crusade, he continually mentions national and world security as the primary reasons the U.S. should own Greenland. Yet, these claims are baseless. The region of the Atlantic ocean between Greenland and Europe has been an important region for NATO security since the beginning of the Cold War, with NATO countries even conducting a joint military exercise called “Strikeback” in September of 1957 to practice defending the region. Operations like Strikeback are prime examples of methods Trump could use to enhance the security of the North Atlantic while diplomatically maintaining and strengthening international relationships.
Trump’s security concerns further lose validity because U.S. security risks in that region originate from fears of the Soviet Navy, which is no longer at the same threat level as it was during the Cold War. Additionally, one of the purposes of NATO is to allow member countries to share military intelligence. That would make the U.S. aware of emerging threats in the North Atlantic.
The much more likely motivation for Trump wanting to acquire Greenland could be the wealth of untapped natural resources being revealed by the melting glaciers on the island. Metals — like lithium, copper and cobalt, which are vital to the development of clean energy technologies — are being discovered in high quantities as climate change melts the ice that once concealed them.
The most concerning aspect of Trump’s uncompromising stance toward Denmark and Greenland is the message it sends to other NATO countries. Trump’s recent overreach of American influence in the North Atlantic risks shaking confidence in NATO. His sentiment alone is enough to make European countries reconsider the value of NATO and potentially seek alternative alliances to protect themselves from the new American aggressor.
