Greenland is of obvious strategic importance in the event of another world war (and to prevent one), or even in the calculus of modern international relations. Americans have known this at least since the end of World War II, which is why President Harry S. Truman’s administration made an offer to buy the island in 1946 for $100 million in gold.
But it’s equally obvious that the NATO alliance is even more important than Greenland. The United States needs the strength and unity of a free Europe to withstand the militaries and expansionist adventurism of the enemies of freedom.
President Donald Trump’s startling pronouncements that the United States intends to acquire Greenland, and that he would try to coerce Europe with higher tariffs than those agreed to in a tariffs and trade agreement last July, have rightly awakened the ire of EU’s leaders and member states.
This is a completely unnecessary controversy.
Important for all of NATO
Luckily, it doesn’t have to be an either/or situation. Greenland is of as much strategic military importance to the EU as it is to the United States. It is important for freedom, a cause that has united Europe and the United States for decades.
A military takeover of the island would be completely unnecessary as the U.S. can accomplish its goals without such force. As The New York Times reported recently, a treaty signed by the United States and Denmark in 1951 allows the U.S. to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases on the island, as well as to “house personnel” and “control landings, takeoffs, anchorages, moorings, movements, and operation of ships, aircraft, and waterborne craft.”
A Danish researcher told the Times this agreement makes it highly likely the United States could negotiate any type of access it wants to Greenland, peacefully. That likely would include advanced surveillance equipment or the ability to mine for important minerals.
It’s unclear if Trump’s threats of military action are a negotiating tactic or an actual threat that could be realized. Either way, Trump needs to tone down his threatening rhetoric toward important allies as it threatens the NATO’s alliance. And, those allies also need to acknowledge the valid reasons why Greenland is important. Its future, along with the protection and consideration of the island’s local population, should be a NATO priority, with a mutually beneficial understanding of the need to utilize Greenland’s strategic importance.
Justina Budginaite-Froehly, a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, may have said it best. Writing for the Atlantic Council, she criticized Europe for not developing its own strategy for Greenland.
“Europe’s problem is not that Washington sees Greenland as a strategic asset. It is that Europe has largely failed to do so itself,” she wrote. “For decades, Greenland was treated as a political sensitivity rather than a strategic priority. That complacency is now dangerous. In an era of renewed power competition, territory that is weakly defended, lightly governed, or externally dependent invites pressure, regardless of legal status.”
Complicated, but can be resolved
Greenland is an autonomous territory belonging to the Kingdom of Denmark. Its roughly 57,000 people have their own elected government but are, in fact, citizens of Denmark.
This unique arrangement does present some sensitivities. However, there is no reason to believe that the people of Greenland could not continue to live as they do now indefinitely, despite a heightened military presence. On the other hand, should Greenland fall into the hands of adversaries or become contested land in a military conflict, its people would be greatly disrupted.
For obvious reasons, Europe should rather have the United States protecting Greenland than Russia or China.
As Budginaite-Froehly wrote, Greenland’s location makes it ideal for monitoring Russian (and potentially Chinese) submarine activity in the Atlantic. It’s equally ideal for providing early warnings of missile launches, as well as tracking them, and for monitoring satellites in space.
“Its geography allows for satellite ground stations and secure communications infrastructure that are increasingly vital as rivals develop counter-space and cyber capabilities,” she wrote, adding, “A Europe that treats Greenland as central to its own security, rather than as a liability to be explained away, can shift the Trump administration’s fixation on acquiring Greenland toward cooperating on Greenland’s security.”
NATO’s importance
As for NATO’s importance, we agree with Robert Person, director of West Point’s curriculum in international relations, and Michael McFaul, former ambassador to the Russian Federation, who wrote in The Journal of Democracy that it “has been fantastically successful.”
After WWII, Communist forces threatened much of Europe.
“From the very beginning, the alliance was not just about security, but also democratic values,” Person and McFaul wrote. “The preamble to the founding 1949 North Atlantic Treaty declares, ‘The Parties to this Treaty … are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage, and civilization of their peoples, founded on principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.’”
The world is becoming increasingly more dangerous and complicated. The United States and its allies need access to certain rare earth minerals for defense and economic purposes that are abundant in Greenland. Currently, these nations rely on China for many of these minerals.
It is regrettable that Trump’s threatening rhetoric has turned the strategic future of Greenland into a point of contention rather than an asset of mutual benefit to its allies.
Both sides should overcome personal feelings and recognize that Greenland is important for all of their survival in a dangerous world.