Since his election, Donald Trump has floated a wide variety of foreign policy ideas, many of which are fairly absurd – especially the trollish suggestion that Canada should become America’s 51st state. But others are far more reasonable, like the potential purchase and annexation of Greenland. Critics have labeled this as an unnecessary distraction and a waste of taxpayer dollars, but they are dead wrong. Annexing Greenland an excellent idea, crucial for bolstering our economy and national security against our adversaries, with long-standing precedent in American history.
American leaders have proposed a purchase of Greenland several times in the past, starting in 1867 and recurring at least thrice in the 20th century before it was re-floated during the first Trump administration. It was most seriously contemplated by Harry Truman in 1946, who offered to buy the territory from the Danes for $100 million in gold and oil rights in Alaska. Had the purchase gone through then – or if it does now – it will not have been the first such negotiated transfer of territory from Denmark to the United States: Washington purchased the Danish West Indies (today’s US Virgin Islands) from Copenhagen in 1917 for $25 million.
That we have not added any permanent new territory since the Second World War does not mean that we cannot or should not now. Peaceful expansion is not antithetical to the American ethos. And although we have not needed such direct aggrandizement in the recent past, that does not mean that we may not need it now. The example of Britain, a supposedly dependable ally, surrendering its sovereignty over the Chagos Islands, home of the American air base on Diego Garcia, to Mauritius and thus exposing a crucial military installation to Chinese influence is instructive. Unless a territory is American in fact and law, its future will remain uncertain. Some critics of the Greenland gambit, usually progressives, lambast it as a relic of the imperial age, but purchasing new territory in a diplomatic negotiation for the purpose of positively integrating it into the nation is not reminiscent of 19th-century imperialism.
Greenland, the world’s largest island, sits along the Arctic Sea, which is rapidly becoming a highly relevant shipping route as the polar ice caps recede, particularly for Russia. The Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Routes could cut costs significantly, a novel reality the shipping industry is already embracing. Furthermore, Greenland has one of the world’s largest known reserves of rare earth minerals, necessary for technology applications from military hardware to clean energy. The island and its surrounding waters also hold large untapped fossil fuel deposits, particularly of natural gas. Much of this natural wealth is trapped beneath the ice or otherwise difficult to access, a problem that is far likelier to be solved by American ingenuity than Danish complacency.
An annexation of Greenland would also be an enormous boon to our national security, especially as great power rivalries extend into the Arctic. That polar region is fast becoming a major geopolitical battleground, with Russia and China heavily investing in broadening their Arctic presence and capabilities. Moscow has long had an interest in the region given its geography, and has begun to further militarize its far northern reaches – lands that lie extremely close to the territory of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Canada, all NATO members. Greenland would give us a direct counter to that presence, an unsinkable aircraft carrier in the North Atlantic. It represents one of the three islands that form the strategically vital GIUK Gap, a set of maritime passages between Greenland, Iceland, and the UK that control access from the North Sea to the Atlantic Ocean. Controlling these chokepoints serves as the first line of defense against an antagonistic continental European power – Germany in the world wars and Russia in the Cold War and beyond – akin to how the First Island Chain works in the Pacific.
Greenland also serves as a key strategic location for missile defense and space conflict. As of now, our missile interceptor network is entirely based on the West Coast, split between Alaska and California; this needs to be rectified if we are to have a credible deterrent effect against our foes. Placing missile interceptors in Greenland would be a perfect complement to the west coast systems, as it can control any missile approaches from the north and east, the likeliest route for attacks on the east coast. Greenland, due to its far northern location, is also well-positioned for the future of space development and militarization. We currently have a presence on Greenland, Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), that provides a significant platform for space surveillance, early warning systems, and force projection into the Arctic and outer space. The national security importance of Greenland is not in its ability to help America project power against our enemies abroad but in its ability to help America defend our homeland from attack.
Since this idea was floated seriously, the Danes have promised to invest $2 billion in bolstering their Arctic defense. This is helpful, but not nearly enough. $2 billion over the course of several years is significant for the Danes, but insignificant compared to America’s annual military budget. Instead of pushing defense dollars to Greenland, which America would be far better suited to defend, Copenhagen would be smart to use those dollars to boost European defenses against an increasingly belligerent and dangerous Russia.
Acquiring Greenland is clearly within the ambit of America’s national interests. It would be beneficial to Americans, Greenlanders, and Danes alike. The issue is getting the deal done. The negotiations to purchase Greenland will not be easy, especially as both the Danes and Greenlanders claim not to be interested in a sale. But given the right combination of carrots and sticks, as well as a coordinated and compelling campaign of persuasion, it is doable. Cajoling the Danes to the table, regardless of their status as a NATO ally, should not be off the table; President Trump’s refusal to rule out economic coercion or military force should be seen as negotiating ploys meant to open Denmark to a deal. And that deal would be good for Denmark, saving it hundreds of millions of dollars in annual subsidies and focusing its defense on the European continent, while still allowing it to retain mineral royalties.
For the Greenlanders, becoming American citizens would be far better than their current status. If Washington were to execute a purchase, it should not incorporate Greenland as a state, but as a territory with significant internal autonomy and a high degree of local sovereignty. Greenlanders would benefit from increased economic development, the power of the American passport, and the permanent guarantee of American freedoms and defense. Another carrot for the denizens of Greenland would be to set up a localized sovereign wealth fund, similar to the Permanent Fund in Alaska, where residents would be paid dividends annually from monies collected for resource exploration and extraction. All of this combined would present Greenlanders with a much rosier picture of the future than they could possibly have under Danish rule.
The costs are minimal as compared to the benefits for all parties involved: Danes, Greenlanders, and, of course, Americans. Acquiring Greenland would support a strong national defense and place America in a powerful position to dominate the rest of the 21st century, both economically and geopolitically. It would be an important bulwark in dealing with the effects of climate change, as well as refocusing our military closer to the homeland. It is a win for everyone but our adversaries, who would like nothing more than to see Washington deprived of this critically important territory.
To Make America Great Again, we have to Make America Grow Again. Buying Greenland is a perfect start.