The Greenland Problem

The United States government wants to annex Greenland. But why? There are three major reasons that our President wants Greenland, and three major reasons why he can’t have it.

The international issue with Greenland is geography-based: Russia is very close to it. Looking down on the map from the Arctic Circle, Greenland is shockingly near Russia. Before global warming was a concern, the far North was impassable, but has become a clear pathway for sea-farers (peaceful and otherwise). Russia and China are the “otherwise” that is worrying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). There have been reports of reconnaissance ships and intelligence-gathering aircraft off the coast of the Arctic island, but President Trump’s report that “if you take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and bigger, there are Russian submarines all over the place” is a significant overestimation.

This overestimate is what has led to the radicalism in and surrounding Greenland. The President’s reasoning behind annexing Greenland follows three main streams of thought: security, resources, and shipping. Greenland is the next-closest, non-landlocked country to Russia besides the United States’ Alaska. While there are measures in Alaska, the military still needs to “regain Arctic skills,” according to the Army’s Military Review. So, instead of fortifying U.S. land, the internationally protected Greenland is the government’s focus. So why Greenland?

Firstly, Greenland is the property of Denmark, a member of NATO. Infringing on Denmark’s claim of the island would lead to a snowballing international conflict very similar to the start of World War I. There have been proposals within Congress about withdrawing from NATO, proposals that never left the runway. Despite this lack of success, the United States has still left the World Health Organization and the Paris Climate Agreement, to name two of 66, on the path to withdrawal. This removal from international affairs has significantly increased the tension between the States and other countries.

Secondly, the people of Greenland prefer being Denmark property. President Trump has a history of proposing takeovers, a history that many countries have become privy to. The Greenland population, however small, has been very vocal over the past few months about not joining the United States. The same thing has happened with Canada in the past, and Venezuela more recently. The unilateral Venezuelan takeover has reignited the international discussions about propaganda, further harming our government’s relationship with that of the other superpowers.

Thirdly and finally, the United States doesn’t need Greenland. It would be significantly more costly to add to the States than to solve the domestic problems that would only compound with more land. President Trump has offered up to $700 billion for Greenland, a huge sum that contradicts his aims to reduce government spending and has simultaneously led to the $750 billion drop in the S&P 500. The oil and fuel that would be harvested can just as easily be replaced at home with more solar investments, and preexisting mining operations in Texas provide more than enough oil and plastics for the entirety of the States.

In summary, Greenland is very important geopolitically and does need international support, support that the United States can’t give it alone. Cooperation is essential to improving the quality of life, and Greenland is proving allegiances.