Department of Research, Studies and International News 13-01-2025

The recent remarks by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump about acquiring Greenland have reignited debates about the Arctic island’s geopolitical significance. Speaking at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, Trump emphasized Greenland’s vital role in bolstering American national security, even hinting at potential military or economic measures to achieve this controversial goal. His ambitions extend beyond Greenland, with discussions about incorporating Canada as the 51st U.S. state and gaining control of the Panama Canal as part of a broader territorial expansion strategy since his election victory in November.

These assertions have prompted questions: Why does Trump view Greenland as so valuable? Is this a novel idea, or does it echo historical U.S. interests in the region?

Greenland’s Location and Unique Status

Nestled between the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans, Greenland is the world’s largest island, geographically part of North America. Despite its massive size 2.17 million square kilometers (836,330 square miles) approximately 80% of its terrain is enveloped in ice. The island, home to around 56,000 residents, primarily Indigenous Inuit people, lies closer to New York City (2,900 km) than Copenhagen (3,500 km), underscoring its geographic proximity to North America.

Historically, Greenland was a Danish colony until it achieved self-governance in 1979, a status further solidified in 2009 when it gained the right to declare independence through a referendum. While technically an autonomous territory under Denmark, Greenland also aligns with NATO due to Denmark’s membership, making it strategically critical to transatlantic military alliances.

Greenland’s connection with the European Union is nuanced. Though not an EU member, it maintains an association as one of the EU’s 25 Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs). Greenland left the European Community, the EU’s predecessor, in 1985, though its residents retain EU citizenship rights.

Reactions to Trump’s Proposal

Trump’s vocal interest in Greenland has met resistance from both Greenlandic and Danish leaders. Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede firmly rejected the idea, declaring that the island is not for sale. “Greenland belongs to its people and will never be sold,” Egede stated. In response, Denmark announced a $1.5 billion defense boost for Greenland, reinforcing its sovereignty and emphasizing its strategic importance.

Danish leaders have also voiced strong opposition. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reiterated that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders,” while Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen dismissed any intentions of aligning Greenland with the U.S. federation. Danish experts, including Christine Nissen from the Europa think tank, have underscored the serious implications of such threats, highlighting their violation of sovereignty and potential disruption to international norms.

Why Greenland?

Greenland holds unparalleled strategic value. Its geographical location offers the shortest route between North America and Europe, making it pivotal for military operations and ballistic missile early-warning systems. The U.S. has maintained a military presence on the island since World War II, with the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) serving as a critical asset.

Beyond military importance, Greenland boasts significant untapped natural resources. Rich in rare earth minerals essential for advanced technologies, Greenland is estimated to contain 25 of the 34 minerals classified as “critical raw materials” by the European Commission. However, Indigenous opposition to mining and environmental concerns have hindered large-scale resource exploitation.

Trump’s aspirations are not without precedent. The U.S. has previously sought to acquire Greenland, notably in 1867 following the Alaska purchase and again in 1946 when President Harry S. Truman offered $100 million for the island. During World War II, the U.S. established a military presence in Greenland to counter Nazi advances, and this presence has persisted for strategic reasons.

Trump’s Greenland ambitions have sparked international unease. European leaders, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, have rebuked the idea, emphasizing the inviolability of national borders. France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot stressed the EU’s commitment to safeguarding its territories from external pressures. Analysts warn that such moves could fracture U.S.-EU relations, destabilize NATO, and undermine the global liberal order.

Greenland’s unique position, straddling geography, geopolitics, and economics, ensures its enduring relevance in international affairs. While Trump’s provocative statements may be speculative, they highlight the island’s critical role in Arctic geopolitics and broader global power dynamics.