Happy times ahead for Greenland and Greenlanders....

I’ve been writing this week about a few global threads, and shining a light in a few places that can get easily overlooked despite their geopolitical significance (Malaysia and Mexico, for example, or the Antarctic).

Everybody has heard about Greenland in the last few weeks - thanks to Donald Trump’s announcement that he intends to take over the world’s largest island. So this post is about how Trump is not the first to float this idea - and about how his intervention is likely to accelerate one of the most important geopolitical developments of the decade.

I was going to send this post out tomorrow (Weds), but have brought it forward for paid subscribers after listening to Trump’s press conference at Mar-a-Lago this afternoon. I’ll unlock this post for all readers at the weekend.

Back in December, Trump had declared that:

‘For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.’

This was roundly mocked around the world as a statement of neo-imperialism, as a crazy pipe dream, as a lack of grasp of reality (not to mention international law) - or a combination of all of these.

Trump's comments followed a similar post a day earlier in which he said the Panama Canal. ‘The fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous, highly unfair,’ he told supporters in Arizona; ‘this complete rip-off of our country will immediately stop.’

In the case of Panama, at least, Trump’s line was more equivocal. His point, delivered with customary brio, was not so much that the canal was ‘a vital national asset’ to the US, but about pricing. If shipping rates were not lowered, Trump said, ‘we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, quickly and without question.’

Some might try to argue that Trump is transactional and that threats like this - and about tariffs - are simply ways to restructure terms of deals and to balance the table in favour of US national interests. But that is not how it is understood in parts of the world I work on, where statements about territorial expansion, recolonisation and hte use of force are followed closely because they offer pathways to local ambitions: if the US can retake assets that used to belong to it, or which it wants for the future, then why can’t Moscow, or Beijing, or Ankara, or Delhi, or others?

Neither Trump nor the US’s interest in Greenland are new. William Seward, who negotiated the acquisition of Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867 as well as that of the islands of St. John and St. Thomas in the Caribbean from Denmark, he thought the idea of obtaining Iceland and Greenland was “worthy of serious consideration.”

An extensive report concluded that Greenland possessed ‘vast quantities’ of fish stocks, as well as ‘good coal…cheaply mined, close to good harbours’ - as well as ‘vast mineral wealth.’ Conditions in the south of the island were ones of ‘unusual healthfulness, and clear atmosphere. The author, Benjamin Pierce, concluded wiht a strong recommnedation that the US should ‘purchase Greenland.’

Efforts to do so ran out of steam as they did in 1910, when the US Ambassador to Denmark, Francis Egan, who presented the US State Department with ‘an audacious suggestion’ - namely ‘the acquisition on our part of Greenland ‘ - or otherwise an exchange of territories as a result of which ‘Denmark should surrender to the United States of America all her enormous possessions in Greenland, estimated to be more than 800,000 English square miles in area.’

The same subject came up again after the end of the Second World War. In April 1946, State Department official John Hickerson noted that in a planning and strategy committee of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ‘practically every member ... said that our real objective as regards to Greenland should be to acquire it by purchase from Denmark.’

The committee stated that there was a commercial opportunity, given ‘that money is plentiful now, that Greenland is completely worthless to Denmark,’ but also that owning Greenland was a ‘indispensable to the safety of the United States’ - and indeed, could be classed as a ‘military necessity.’

As a result, a formal offer was put to the Danish Foreign Minister Gustav Rasmussen by US Secretary of State, James Byrnes.

And then, most famously, Donald Trump himself ‘expressed interest’ in buying Greenland in 2019 when he was President, going so far as to take get the views of the White House counsel about the matter. The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had learned that Denmark was finding financial support to the territory expensive, and at a dinner had asked his guests about buying the island, asking them “What do you guys think about that?”

He later told reporters ‘Strategically, it’s interesting, and we’d be interested, but we’ll talk to them a little bit. It’s not number one on the burner.’

‘A lot of things could be done’, he said. ‘It’s hurting Denmark very badly because they’re losing almost $700 million a year carrying it. So they carry it at a great loss. And strategically for the United States, it would be nice. And we’re a big ally of Denmark, and we help Denmark, and we protect Denmark.’

In any event, who better than a property developer to acquire Greenland? After all, purchasing the territory from Denmark was essentially a ‘large real estate deal.’

The reactions around the world - and especially in Denmark - ranged from the bemused to the indignant. In the aftermath of the uproar, Trump cancelled a planned visit to Copenhagen - where he had been invited by Queen Margarethe II.

Although he praised Denmark as a ‘very special country with incredible people’, Trump declared he would not longer travel, since Danish PM Mette Frederiksen had ‘no interest in discussing the purchase of Greenland.’

He also turned on the Danish Prime Minister, who had called his putative offer ‘absurd.’ Frederiken stated that ‘Greenland is not Danish. Greenland is Greenlandic. I persistently hope that this is not something that is seriously meant.’

‘I thought that the prime minister's statement that it was absurd, that it was an absurd idea was nasty’, said Trump. ‘I thought it was an inappropriate statement. All she had to do is say no, we wouldn't be interested.’

So here we are again: Greenland back in play - at least in Donald Trump’s mind.

The response in Denmark was clear and defiant. Trump’s ‘offer’ was ‘a Christmas present from hell’, according to one leading newspaper.

The wheels have turned fast in Copenhagen. First, the Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen announced that Denmark was boosting support for Greenland, committing an additional €1.3 billion, that would support Denmark’s Arctic Command with new patrol boats, long-range drones and sled dog teams. This was, said Lund Poulsen, unconnected with Trump’s comments and was going to be announced anyway. Hmmm.

Rather more obvious - and significant - is the re-issuing of the royal coat of arms by the King of Denmark shortly before Christmas (and just before Trump’s intervention).

As you’ll see from the left hand crest, bottom left hand shield, gone are the three crowns of Denmark, Norway and Sweden that have been on the Danish coat of arms for 500 years. Upgraded are the symbols both of Greenland and of the Faroe islands (right hand side, bottom left quarter, top right quarter).

Some might say that this is all symbolic and does not mean much - especially in today’s day and age. I don’t agree. I think it is both revealing and important.

So too is the reaction in Greenland itself.

Soon after Trump’s declaration of the ‘absolute necessity’ of owning Greenland, the territory’s Prime Minister Mute Egede put out a written statement noting that ‘Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.’

So I followed Egede’s New Year speech carefully to see how the renewed interest has been interpreted in Nuuk.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede

‘It is with excitement and renewed plans that we usually begin a new year’, said Egede. ‘For the new year opens up new opportunities and new perspectives.’ Fair enough.

Egede then set out his stall clearly:

History and current conditions have shown that our cooperation with the Kingdom of Denmark has not managed to create full equality, and if we are still to take the Danish Constitution as our starting point, equal cooperation cannot be created.

It is time for us to take a step ourselves and shape our future, also with regard to who we will cooperate closely with and also who our trade relations will be. For our cooperation with other countries, and our trade relations, cannot continue to take place solely through Denmark…

It was time, he said, to push forward with plans for full independence.

The parliament of Greenland (Inatsisartut) and the Executive body fo the government of Greenland (Naalakkersuisut) ‘have worked together to take steps to draft our constitution, which is our basis for secession from Denmark.’

As such, ‘a draft constitution, a constitution for our country, has also been prepared. Work has already begun to create the framework for Greenland as an independent state.’

‘There is great interest in our country from the outside world. I would like to emphasize again that Greenland is owned by the Greenlandic people’, he went on. ‘Very important steps await us ahead.’

In this context, then, the changing of the royal coat of arms might be seen as a red flag to Greenland - a statment not of greater equality, but rather of a reinforcement of colonial claims. It will be interesting to follow those discussions in the coming months.

So too will the election in Greenland, which will take place some point before April this year. My best guess is that we will see a declaration of independence in 2025.

It will also open the door to US investment - likely on a very significant scale; those will come with security and commercial demands, especially with regards to others with their own interests in the Arctic’s strategic value and its mineral and other resources.

That in turn means a bonanza for Greenland and Greenlanders - of whom there are fewer than attend a regular Premier League match at Arsenal. Much will depend on the deal-making decisions in Nuuk and their long-term consequences.

Ironically, none of this will make Trump’s dream of buying Greenland become any more real or realistic - despite Donald Jr’s surprise visit to the island this week. It will though accelerate Greenland’s move to independence, because Trump has made clear that he has the means and willingess to improve opportunities for those who live there.

In his Mar-a-Lago press conference today (7 Jan) Trump was asked about Greenland again. After refusing to rule out the use of force against Panama, and claiming he had the ‘economic force’ to join Canada to the US (!), the incoming President spoke about using muscles against Denmark, promising to ‘tariff Denmark at a very high level’ if it did not give Greenland to the United States.

He has obviously been briefed about previous ideas about taking over Greenland. ‘Long before I ran, people have been talking about it for a long time’ he said.

‘People really dont know if Denmark has any legal right to it’, he said - briefly appearing to sound like he might be a champion of decolonisation, before adding ‘if they do, they should give it up - because we need it for national security. That’s for the free world.’

Greenland’s move towards independence has been developing for decades; so Trump should not be given the credit for spurring Greenlanders’ decisions. His intervention will though accelerate this outcome.

Moreover, because of Greenland’s location, its resources, the series of competitions that are emerging in the Arctic, its move towards independence will create some of the most significant new opportunities and challenges of the decade.

How different will the outcome be, then, to China’s much vaunted Belt and Road Initiative? Will US investment be a version of something similar - debt diplomacy and neo-colonialism in all but name? That’s a good question for another day….