Following his presidential election into the executive office, President Donald Trump made it known to the citizens of the United States and the world that he planned to continue his agenda of acquiring Greenland as a United States territory, which he briefly pursued during his first term as president.
This led to a large debate ranging from countries to individuals: would the U.S. acquisition of Greenland break or build connections across the Atlantic?
The territory of Greenland has drastically changed through history, as it was a colonial territory of the Kingdom of Denmark and under full control of the Danish government until World War II, when the Germans took control of Denmark for a brief period of time. This shift in power under fascist rule left Greenland exposed, allowing the US to establish military bases in the territory in efforts to keep North America safe from the allied powers.
After the conclusion of World War II, U.S. protection of Greenland ceased, as the territory returned to Denmark, eventually gaining independence and status as an autonomous territory with a self-governing parliament, a power which they have retained to today’s world.
Additionally, with the development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a political and military alliance between 32 countries in both North America and Europe, Denmark has included Greenland as one of their territories under protection, claiming full military responsibility for Greenland.
In support of his desire for acquisition, President Trump has stated that he does not believe that the Danish government has a strong enough military presence in Greenland to fulfill this responsibility entrusted to them through the NATO agreements, in relevance to the threats Greenland faces due to its location.
Sitting just east of Canada, Greenland serves as a middleground and base point for strength against threats from both Russia and China, which would provide strong advantages for the U.S. and any other country a part of NATO in times of war.
This disagreement in military strength is a large reason for President Trump’s goals for buying the territory, among other reasons, such as economic benefits, influx of resources, and mutual benefit for the territory. His defence is that the U.S. would not use force in the acquisition of Greenland, rather it would be a diplomatic, financial agreement in the best interest of all involved.
The country of Denmark has repeatedly shut down this offer, claiming that Greenland is “not for sale,” and in response to that, on January 17th, President Trump threatened a 10 percent trade tariff over goods sent to dominant European NATO countries who did not support the policy, but withdrew that proposal after a meeting with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
That meeting truly brings light to the debate over whether or not the acquisition is a smart or probable move. A forced control over the territory would violate the military treaties of NATO, but a negotiated purchase would not concern the involvement of the other countries involved in the peace treaty.
The citizens of Greenland have responded to this with an 85 percent consensus that they do not want to join the U.S., and this has led to the debate: is spending the effort of the government on buying Greenland a smart idea for the U.S.?
A variety of this debate can be seen by a junior who wishes to remain anonymous, as they said, “I understand that acquiring Greenland as a territory would be beneficial for the U.S., as it provides military advantage and resource supply. However, the U.S. already has a partnership with Denmark and access to its systems, which makes the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.”
Similarly, many people have voiced concern over the efforts of the executive branch being used to purchase Greenland when there are more concerning issues taking place in the political scene of our country. Another anonymous junior said, “While the purchase of Greenland may be strategic in terms of access to trade routes, earth minerals, and security, there are larger issues to focus on in this country, such as the unjust surveillance and enforcement (e.g., ICE, police brutality, etc.), stripping the freedoms and rights of the American people who make this country.”
The move to acquire Greenland has since been slowed by President Trump in recent days, though no formal statements have been made to stop or advance this purchase. Various news broadcasts have speculated reasons for this halted agenda, but none have come to a supportable conclusion.
Was it the voice of the people or the concern of the country that has put this goal on the back burner for President Trump?