President Donald Trump’s years-long threats to seize Greenland crescendoed this week. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump was considering a range of options for conquering the country and that “using the U.S. military is always an option available to the commander in chief.”
But according to foreign policy experts, Danish officials were disconcerted by Trump’s threats to use military intervention to take control of Greenland, because there is already a long-standing agreement under which the United States is increasing its military presence there. In 1951, the United States and Denmark signed a little-known defense agreement authorizing the United States “to improve and generally adapt the area for military use” in Greenland and to “construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment there.”
“This agreement is very generous, it is very open,” said Mikkel Runge Olesen, a senior fellow at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen. Fortune. “The United States would be able to achieve almost every security goal imaginable under this agreement. »
Given the expansive terms of the contract, “there is very little understanding of why the United States should seize Greenland at this time,” Olesen added.
Although Trump’s desire for Greenland has punctuated his two administrations (in 2019, his intentions to purchase the self-governing Danish territory were immediately rebuffed by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen), world leaders have taken the president’s most recent interest in the island more seriously. After the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro by U.S. forces, Trump invoked greater imperial authority through what he endorsed as the “Donroe Doctrine,” alluding to the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine, a foreign policy warning European powers against intervention in the Western Hemisphere.
Greenland, covered in ice and home to 56,000 people, most of them Inuit, has become crucial to the defense of North America thanks to its position above the Arctic Circle, giving it access to naval and sea routes. Combined with its abundance of rare earths, the country has become coveted by Trump, who wants to secure it not only for its wealth of natural resources, but also from Chinese and Russian ships that he says have anchored in the Arctic region.
Long-standing ties between the United States and Denmark
For more than 80 years, the United States’ presence in Greenland has become a fundamental element in deepening its relations with Denmark and with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). During World War II, Denmark’s ambassador to the United States, Henrik Kauffmann, defied the Nazi-controlled Danish government and essentially negotiated a deal with the United States to give America access to Greenland. An American military presence there would prevent Nazi forces from using the island as a bridge between Europe and North America.
The agreement that was supposed to dissolve after the war was strengthened by the creation of NATO in 1949, which required the United States to ensure the defense of Europe against Soviet forces. A new agreement in 1951 confirmed the right of the United States to establish defense zones in Greenland and its validity depended on the continued existence of NATO. In 2004, the agreement was updated to add Greenland, which established some self-government in 1979, as a signatory.
The United States today has only one military base in Greenland, the Pituffik space base, compared to around fifty at the height of the Cold War. But if the United States wants to expand its presence there for national security reasons, as Trump has suggested, that would require negotiations with Denmark and Greenland, Olesen said. Historically, these negotiations have been friendly.
“Concretely, there has been a tendency on the Danish and Greenlandic side to always consider our requests for security in Greenland with a lot of goodwill and a lot of openness,” he said.
Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen, citing the 1951 agreement, implored the Trump administration to end its discussions about taking over Greenland.
“We already have today a defense agreement between the Kingdom and the United States, which gives the United States broad access to Greenland,” Frederiksen said in a statement this weekend. “I therefore strongly urge the United States to end threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people who have made it very clear that they are not for sale. »
Trump’s motivations for taking Greenland
Garret Martin, a lecturer and co-director of the Transatlantic Policy Center at American University, believes that Trump’s insistence on appearing to reject the 1951 agreement in favor of military force or offers to buy Greenland (although Danish officials have repeatedly said the country is not for sale) is an extension of the 19th-century philosophy of “gunboat diplomacy” that the president adopted with Venezuela.
In the case of Greenland, Trump may want to send a message to Denmark that the United States has greater military capabilities that it is willing to deploy.
“Trump believes – and is often keen to emphasize – the United States as leverage,” Martin said. Fortune. “And it’s possible that he’s trying to say to Denmark: ‘Look, you’re in a weak position. Greenland fundamentally depends on us. Why should we resort to these formalities when in reality we are the key player?'”
Trump’s tactic may also stem from a desire to lay claim to the rare earths buried deep under Greenland’s ice, which has become more urgent for Trump as China has 90% of the rare earths the world needs.
Anthony Marchese, president of Texas Mineral Resources Corporation, said Fortune earlier this week, the president’s hope of mining these rare earths is almost a fantasy. The northern part of Greenland is only mineable six months a year due to dangerous weather conditions, and expensive mining equipment must endure months in this cold climate.
“If you’re looking at going to Greenland for its minerals, you’re talking about billions and billions of dollars and extremely long lead times before anything comes out,” he said.
According to Olesen, Trump’s desire for rare earths, as well as his national security urgency, can be addressed by Danish and Greenlandic officials through negotiations, making them less of a concern. The problem will arise if Trump’s primary motivation for moving to Greenland is a symbolic display of military prowess rather than specific demands that can be met through diplomacy.
“It’s difficult to compromise with territorial expansion,” Olesen said.
