There’s no denying it. Donald Trump is a prince among real estate developers, known for his pushy, winner-takes-all approach. Trump hotels, resorts, casinos and golf courses are evidence of that. The same acquisitive instinct could be behind his recent intent to acquire Greenland, by force if required. For one, Greenland looks big—almost the size of Africa on a Mercator projection of the world map—and in Trump’s eyes, big is beautiful.
But, clearly, there’s more to this than the covetous intent of a real estate mogul. The US has long seen Greenland as essential to its defence and its acquisition has been discussed before. Not just in 2019 during Trump’s first term when it was dismissed as so much nonsensical bluster but as early as 1946 and even 1867, the year is which America acquired Alaska from Russia. During World War II, the US occupied Greenland to prevent its use by Germany following German occupation of Denmark. Greenland remains crucial for missile air defence for the US and an important space base is placed there; this, however, is clearly not enough.
Greenland abuts into the Arctic, a region that hitherto lay in relatively frozen balance between the Arctic nations—Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Russia and the US. Now climate change—ironically, something that Trump dismisses as a hoax—has upset the equilibrium. According to a recent study, the Arctic region has been warming four times faster than the rest of the world over the past four decades; since 1980, the volume of Arctic Sea ice has declined by as much as 75 per cent.
This has both wide-ranging commercial and strategic implications. Scientists are projecting that by 2035, parts of the Arctic will be free of ice during summer months, opening up huge opportunities in commercial and tourist shipping, fisheries, energy and mineral resources. Transit times through the Northern Sea Route (largely claimed by Russia) and the Northwest Passage (largely claimed by Canada) could be shortened by 30-50 per cent between the US, Europe and Asia. These claims, incidentally, are disputed and therein lies the seed for further conflict.
Greenland alone has huge mineral riches. One report estimates 1,000 trillion cubic feet of proven gas reserves and 90 billion barrels of oil; additionally there are massive reserves of gold, zinc, nickel and copper. Greenland also holds 25 of the 34 minerals such as graphite, lithium and rare earths classified as “critical raw materials” and essential for energy transformation technologies like electric vehicles and wind turbines.
Given the high stakes and conflicting claims the strategic race is likely to be brutal, particularly in the increasingly confrontational geo-political landscape. Unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is not a global common and there is no over-arching treaty that governs it, except the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). For the present, Russia is the dominant power, with the longest Arctic coastline, half the Arctic population, a full-fledged strategic policy and the presence of its nuclear submarine and bomber fleets. The expansion of NATO to include Sweden and Finland has brought it to Russia’s door in the Arctic, too. China, though not an Arctic nation, has been very active, investing heavily in ports, energy and mining. Some years ago it offered to fund the building of Greenland’s airports and Denmark, under US pressure, had to offer its own funding.
The strategic importance of Greenland for the US is clear, particularly given the increasing Chinese and Russian commercial and strategic footprint. But a threat of occupation by force is not the way. It will only prove that the world has lost its centre and the line between right and wrong has been finally obliterated.
The writer is former ambassador to the US.