As global competition intensifies and the Arctic emerges as a critical geopolitical battleground, the United States must assert greater control over Greenland to safeguard its national security interests.
President-elect Trump’s vision of American ownership of Greenland is not merely a whimsical notion; it is grounded in the historical and legal framework established by the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement. This agreement empowers the U.S. to significantly influence and potentially control this strategically vital territory, making a compelling case for action that Congress and diplomats cannot ignore.
Historical Context
The 1951 agreement was forged in the crucible of the Cold War, recognizing Greenland’s critical importance to North Atlantic security. This pact granted the United States significant rights and responsibilities within Greenland, establishing a framework that continues to shape the geopolitical landscape of the Arctic region.
Key Provisions
The agreement’s provisions grant significant authority for increased American control when national security is invoked:
Military Presence: Article II of the agreement allows for the establishment of “defense areas” in Greenland, where the United States can construct and operate military facilities. This provision has enabled the continued operation of Thule Air Base, now the Pituffik Space Base, a cornerstone of American strategic capabilities in the Arctic.
Operational Control: In cases where the U.S. is responsible for operating defense areas, American commanders have substantial authority, with Danish personnel serving in advisory roles. This arrangement demonstrates the trust placed in American leadership and expertise.
Freedom of Movement: The agreement grants U.S. forces broad access rights within Greenland, including the use of air, land and sea spaces adjacent to defense areas. This freedom of movement is essential for maintaining effective control and rapid response capabilities.
Infrastructure Development: The U.S. is permitted to “improve and generally fit the area for military use” without compensation to Denmark. This clause has allowed for significant American investment in Greenland’s infrastructure, further entrenching U.S. presence and influence.
Contemporary Relevance
The geopolitical landscape has evolved significantly since 1951, but Greenland’s strategic importance has only increased. A warming Arctic is opening new shipping routes and exposing vast mineral resources, attracting the attention of global powers like China and Russia. In this context, the provisions of the 1951 agreement take on renewed significance.
Arctic Security: Greenland’s location makes it an ideal base for monitoring and responding to activities in the Arctic region. The island’s proximity to North America — just a few hours’ flight from major U.S. cities — underscores its critical role in homeland defense.
Resource Control: Greenland’s rare earth mineral deposits are of particular interest to the United States, especially given concerns about Chinese dominance in this sector. The ability to secure these resources could be framed as a matter of national security.
Diplomatic Leverage: The existing agreement provides a strong foundation for negotiations with Denmark and Greenland. The U.S. could argue that expanded control is a natural extension of its long-standing commitment to Greenland’s defense and development.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
While the 1951 agreement does not explicitly allow for unilateral American control of Greenland, it does establish a precedent for significant U.S. authority within the territory. Any move towards greater control would need to be carefully negotiated with Denmark and Greenland, respecting their sovereignty while emphasizing mutual security interests.
Potential Pathways
Several approaches could be considered for expanding American influence in Greenland:
- Enhanced Defense Agreement: Negotiate an updated version of the 1951 agreement, expanding U.S. rights and responsibilities in light of new security challenges.
- Economic Integration: Increase American investment in Greenland’s economy, particularly in strategic sectors like mining and defense infrastructure development.
- NATO framework: Leverage Greenland’s strategic importance within NATO to justify a larger American presence and role in the island’s affairs.
The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement provides a strong historical and legal basis for expanded American involvement in Greenland. As the Arctic becomes an increasingly contested region, Greenland’s strategic value will only grow. The United States, with its established presence and legal framework for operation in Greenland, is well-positioned to assert its interests in this critical territory.
By leveraging existing agreements and emphasizing mutual security concerns, the U.S. can make a compelling case for enhancing its role in Greenland’s future. This approach aligns with President-elect Trump’s vision of increased American control over this vital Arctic asset, ensuring U.S. national security interests are protected in an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape.
Matthew Shoemaker is a former intelligence officer with the Navy and the Defense Intelligence Agency and a former Republican congressional candidate. He served on the Russia desk as part of European Command and the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre. He holds a master’s degree from Mount St Mary’s University and is completing his Ph.D. in Nuclear War Strategy from King’s College London.
