The Arctic Circle is heating up again
The sparsely populated island of Greenland has become the focus of much media attention. The star of the show, as always, is President Donald Trump, who has signaled his willingness to buy Greenland in a way that is unorthodox, yet by now seems to settle for a framework that will grant Washington greater access to the island for years to come. Immediately, it led to fiery reactions from his opponents in the United States, protests in Greenland and Denmark, frantic discussions on European talkshows and news channels, and social media was abuzz.
Back to the past
Trump has done it again. Initially, he hinted that economic and even military force might be used to acquire Greenland, if he was denied the opportunity to buy it. Some pundits would argue that this is his trademark: say something outrageous, ruffle some feathers, tone down the rhetoric, and try to get a deal that benefits the United States. Perhaps, that is the case and Trump simply enjoys stirring the pot, such as through uploading an AI picture of him lecturing in front of a map with Greenland and Canada draped in an American flag. And while he might consider his unpredictability a useful negotiating tool, it has led to serious concern among the US’ close allies in Europe. At Davos, he argued that he simply wanted Greenland for national security, as the Danes could not be expected to defend this “piece of ice” effectively. Greenlanders were understandably shocked and staged protests that they were not for sale. In addition, Denmark showed its solidarity, by staging protests in Copenhagen, complete with Greenlandic and Danish flags – indeed, is this the way the United States treats an ally, one that sent soldiers to fight in Afghanistan, both Danish and Greenlandic?
Could this be an eastward version of Manifest Destiny, the concept that was popularized in the nineteenth century about the United States’ need to expand from sea to shining sea, based on a combination of moral, republican, and even divine arguments? Not really, because Trump used none of these to defend his offer to buy the “piece of ice.” In Davos, he simply argued that it was necessary for American national security, as he would like to build his Golden Dome there. But the offer to buy land is historically, of course, not novel at all in the case of the United States.
Think of Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase; or the Gadsden Purchase; and President Abraham Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Henry Seward was both a staunch abolitionist and believer in Manifest Destiny, who dreamed of buying Alaska and Caribbean islands – he lived to see the former, not the latter. Moreover, in the 1850s Seward openly stated that Canada would one day join the United States, as referenced by Canadian historian John Boyko in his book Blood and Daring, which analyzes Canada’s role in the American Civil War. Though Canada and the United States would become close allies throughout the twentieth century – that alliance has become more tense in recent years – the nineteenth century was mostly characterized by border tensions and American dreams of annexation. So, no wonder Canadians become anxious when Trump posts pictures of Canada as American territory. But, in the case of Greenland, Trump’s desire for it is not new either.
A historically coveted island
Trump already offered to buy Greenland in 2019, during his first term. Back then, Greenland and Denmark flatly refused. Today, the same answer was sent to Washington: Danish territory is not for sale. But was that always the case?
Certainly not, as some of the Virgin Islands were Danish territory which Copenhagen parted with relatively easily in 1916. Up to that point the United States had actually never acknowledged Danish sovereignty in Greenland, but everything changed when the United States purchased its small Caribbean possessions. As explained by Scandinavian historians Michael Bregnsbo and Kurt Villads Jensen in their book The Rise and Fall of the Danish Empire, Denmark demanded that American recognition of Greenland as Danish territory would be included in the agreement. The State Department disapproved, but President Woodrow Wilson finally agreed. Decades later, the United States would deploy forces to Greenland in 1941, to prevent it from falling into Nazi Germany’s hands, after Hitler had occupied Denmark. After the war, Greenland would eventually cease to be a colony and became an equal part of the Danish kingdom in 1953. President Harry S. Truman offered to buy Greenland, but Denmark again refused. Instead, the US was offered continued access to Greenland and so its forces were stationed at Thule Air Base, which today is called the Pituffik Space Base. But Greenland’s history is even more intriguing.
Bregnsbo and Jensen explain why Denmark parted ways with its share of the Virgin Islands, while refusing to sell Greenland. The former was acquired by a Danish private trading company and had no Scandinavian history. However, Greenland has a long Norse tradition, as Norsemen settled on the island in the tenth century. That community lived on the island for several centuries, before it disappeared. Scholars are uncertain about the reasons, but intermarriage with other communities or extinction are provided as possible explanations.
So, Greenland had been claimed by Norway, until the creation of the Kingdom of Denmark-Norway. After that, Denmark-Norway tried to assert sovereignty over Greenland, by sending an expedition to search for traces of the ancient Norse community. They found none, but when Norway was conquered by Sweden, Denmark remained the sole sovereign of its largely frozen colony.
To make it even more interesting, most of the current Greenlanders are descended from the Inuit. Their ancestors – referred to as the Thule culture – migrated eastward from Alaska and arrived in Greenland in the fourteenth century. They brought the culture of dog sleds with them, as well as the use of harpoons for hunting. Today, a majority of Greenlanders prefers full independence, a demand rooted in its colonial history until 1953. For example, one community was relocated to make room for Thule Air Base and promised the same hunting opportunities and living standards, but in the 1990s the government admitted that their living standards had deteriorated as a consequence. Currently, the island enjoys autonomy government, but the possibility of independence is complicated by the fact that Greenland relies heavily on Danish financial support – an annual grant worth 535 million euros is provided by Denmark.
But there have been other disputes over Greenland, too. Thus, in the 1920s, Norway claimed the unsettled northeastern and eastern part of Greenland, a claim rejected by Denmark. The dispute led to a temporary agreement between both countries, but not a final settlement. After the agreement, Denmark started to build settlements in the disputed part of Greenland to assert sovereignty. Norwegian activists responded by building a few huts, declaring that Denmark was occupying Norwegian land, and hoisted the Norwegian flag in defiance. Denmark proceeded to submit the case to The Hague for arbitration and its claims on the disputed parts of Greenland were upheld in 1931. After that, Norway relinquished all claims on Greenland.
Finally, there was the comical Whiskey War which lasted between Canada and Denmark from the 1970s, until 2022. It focused on a rock called Hans Island, which Canada claimed in the early 1970s, by hoisting its flag and leaving a bottle of whiskey. Denmark responded by planting its flag and leaving a bottle of schnapps. Thus, flags were repeatedly removed back and forth, until the comical episode was settled amicably in 2022 through diplomacy. Canada received the western half of Hans Island and Denmark the eastern side. But while a UN website describes this episode as a shining example of peaceful diplomacy, it is quite stunning that a border dispute between two NATO allies could drag on for five decades, despite the fact that Hans Island is a small, barren, and uninhabited rock where mineral resources might be found in the waters surrounding it.
So, the history of our globe’s largest island with a population smaller than cities such as West Hartford, Connecticut, Nazareth or the Dutch city of Bergen op Zoom, has historically attracted quite a lot of attention. Yet today it is mostly about national security, right?
What you cannot see might matter the most
Trump stated that he wanted Greenland for national security. But does that mean that he would be willing to take on the responsibility for its citizens, which Denmark provides on an annual basis? Well, experts have pointed out the vast potential beneath the ice: a wealth of natural resources.
There certainly has been growing Russian and Chinese military activity in the region. Moreover, Greenland sits strategically on the shortest route between the United States and Russia. Yet next to the national security argument, Greenland is believed to have vast reserves of hydrocarbon resources deep beneath the surface, equal to the United States’ current proven oil and gas reserves. But there is something else that is even more important: rare earth elements (REEs).
Scrambling for the future?
Guess who currently enjoys the greatest access to these valuable metals that are used in various products, from weapons systems and smartphones to MRI scanners? China, roughly 70 percent of all active mines in the world can be found there. And guess who refines most of these metals and even imports semi-processed ores from the United States and Australia? Again, China, nearly 90 percent of all activity. These metals are important for the so-called “green transition,” as the world wants to move away from the dependence on fossil fuels. But considering these numbers, China currently enjoys a near monopoly on these valuable metals which are consumed in various sectors across the globe. Not only is dependence on China an issue for the United States in a political sense; it creates vulnerability in supply chains; and, finally, basic economics warns against the dangers of a monopoly, due to such issues as market-pricing power.
Though experts have warned that extracting these minerals from Greenland is quite difficult and thus very expensive, that could change as ice keeps melting and it becomes easier to drill in the future. Thus, Trump’s argument does seem misleading. But I would argue that the same goes for the feverish discussion on European news channels and talkshows, where the defense of Greenland has become a top priority, all of a sudden. This is not simply about solidarity with Greenlanders, as the resources are valuable to Brussels as well.
How many REE mines does Europe have? Two, one in Norway and one in Sweden. There is one issue, though: they will not be fully operational, until a decade from now – so, technically, none. And Norway is not even a member of the European Union. Next to two processing plants, one in France and one in Estonia, this is the extent of REE reserves and production. And the EU has adopted a law in 2024 that requires a reduction of its dependence on China. Due to a dearth of these materials in Europe, experts have pointed out that alternatives exist. One would be to reduce consumption. Another option would be to invest in companies that can compete with China in the rare earth value chain. Yet another option is recycling used REEs. However, considering the fact that the European Union has identified 34 critical raw materials – among them REEs – of which Greenland holds vast quantities of 25 different types, it become clear that the support for Danish sovereignty is rooted in more than just solidarity against Trump’s antagonistic rhetoric. With both the US and the EU trying to counter China’s monopoly, the economic value of the world’s largest island cannot be underestimated.
Could Greenland become independent?
It is a wish still cherished by a majority of Greenlanders in a recent poll and actually respected by Denmark’s acknowledgement of Greenland’s right to self-determination, since 2009. In fact, its vast natural riches are used as the rationale for independence, by arguing that the extraction of these metals could sustain the dream of sovereignty. But, already in 2022, Bregnsbo and Jensen raised some important questions.
Greenland’s population is small and aging. If it became independent, would it then be able to defend its own borders? Moreover, if it could extract its resources, that would mean that large numbers of foreign technicians and workers would need to enter Greenland, thus significantly altering its demographics. Finally, even though necessary for the green transition, the extraction will lead to environmental damage – in China, it has caused radioactive pollution. In the case of the last factor, expert Jonathan Paul argued that this poses another dilemma: while the natural wealth is needed for the green transition, being able to extract it means that global warming needs to continue.
In short, if Greenlanders want to preserve their own way of life, the dream of independence will inevitably come at a price. And considering the necessity of these minerals in more ways than one, American, Chinese or EU interest will remain. In that sense, its natural wealth can be seen as both a boon and a curse.
Greenland will remain a hot topic
Thus, the headlines on Greenland might disappear relatively soon, but its global importance will not. As the Arctic Circle continues to warm up literally, it will therefore continue to heat up figuratively. But, perhaps there are three positive outcomes from the fact that Greenland has garnered so much attention and solidarity protests in Copenhagen have received global news coverage. One, Israeli interest has shown that one Jew currently lives in Greenland and that Jewish history there goes back several centuries. Indeed, Jews appeared for the first time in the sixteenth century, as some were involved in the Dutch whaling industry – who knew? Two, you can only find polar bears in Greenland, not penguins. And three, maybe, just maybe, all Americans will now finally realize that Copenhagen is not the capital of the Netherlands.
