Many politicians and commentators condemn the idea of the United States taking control of Greenland because the island is a territory under the sovereignty of a friendly country and a NATO ally. Such an American move would be wrong for legal, diplomatic, and moral reasons.
Although Trump and some other American politicians in the past have mentioned this idea, the most important reason why the United States has never acquired or invaded Greenland is likely more pragmatic. It was never necessary. Whenever the United States needed to use the island for its defense, it did so without major problems or difficulties. This was the case during World War II and during the first Cold War. Formally, since 1951, the United States and Denmark have had a treaty that allows the United States to do essentially whatever it needs for its national defense in Greenland.
Over the years, the United States therefore enjoyed almost unlimited access to the island’s territory, which it used to build and operate several military bases. However, after 1991, with the end of the Cold War, the situation reversed. A substantial U.S. disinvestment took place, with the closure of several bases and facilities and a reduction of the military contingent at the only remaining base, Pituffik Air Base, dedicated to aerospace defense. Available data indicate a current garrison of around 150 personnel. By comparison, this number is lower than the 180 personnel that made up the most recent and reduced U.S. force at Lajes Air Base.
If, as Trump complains, existing defenses are insufficient to counter intrusive Chinese and Russian maritime incursions and presence, who is to blame? The long-term U.S. disinvestment was a clear mistake. It substantially worsened the security situation in the Arctic for both the United States and NATO. Contrary to Trump’s complaints, this error was aggravated during his first administration and continued during the first year of his second term.
How can the persistent failure to correct such a serious mistake be explained? Probably for two different reasons. Both are somewhat speculative and require academic evidence, but they deserve attention.
The first reason relates to a demagogic strategy aimed at gaining popular support and securing a place in history. Episodes such as the Louisiana Purchase by Thomas Jefferson in 1803 and the purchase of Alaska by Andrew Johnson in 1867 are landmarks in U.S. history that Trump appears to want to replicate. The primary impulse that leads voters around the world to favor territorial expansion is a remnant of a pre-industrial, agrarian world in which more land meant more power. Today’s world is different. Prosperity, security, and power depend primarily on a country’s capacity to generate innovation and create wealth, as countries such as Singapore demonstrate. Any gains from expanding land and maritime areas are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
The second reason for the persistence of this American error, and of Trump’s in particular, would be more serious if confirmed. Acknowledging that the Arctic will increasingly be navigated by Russian, Chinese, and other actors requires admitting that global warming is occurring. Trump and many Republicans have refused to acknowledge global warming and have attempted to dismantle mitigation and adaptation policies designed to address it, some of which are indeed flawed. Trump’s reaction, and that of others, accusing those who demonstrate the existence of global warming of fraud may have prevented the adoption of a much-needed defense policy, even though it would have been based on inconvenient facts. To obscure and deflect from a strategic mistake, Trump chose instead to appeal demagogically to the occupation of Greenland. The underlying security error, however, is serious, and it will soon become clear to voters.
Miguel Gouveia, Professor at CATÓLICA-LISBON