President Trump’s contention that Greenland is vital to the national security of the United States is unassailable. With the continuing – beneficial – natural warming of our planet over future decades, and our increasing reliance on missile and space-based defense, the requirement of controlling Greenland for our national defense and other critical interests cannot be overstated.
In response to this clear national priority within our own hemisphere – which, in turn, would benefit and protect the entire West, the security of which has been guaranteed virtually entirely by the United States since 1945 – the Danish and other Western European governments recently have proclaimed inviolate “red lines” purportedly to protect the “territorial integrity” of the Kingdom of Denmark. This reflexive and prideful response – based on anachronistic historical events with little or no relevance to today’s world – is unacceptable. Unless and until Western Europe is prepared to guarantee its own security – which, of course, today cannot even be imagined – the priority of its governments must be to ensure the strength of NATO and the resulting collective security of its members. Under current and foreseeable circumstances, this requires that the United States must own and thereby fully and forever control Greenland.
But does the United States need all of Greenland? I’m not sure we do. Greenland conveniently is divided between Arctic Greenland – the island’s huge land mass lying north of the Arctic Circle – and Sub-Arctic Greenland, its much smaller triangular tip projecting southward from the Arctic Circle. The vital security interest of the United States lies in Arctic Greenland, which comprises over 80 percent of the island. This is the massive area that controls increasingly accessible Arctic shipping lanes, and is closest both to Russia and to the North Pole, with all of their geographic and astronomical significance to our national defense. There simply is no question that the United States, as the world’s superpower and primary defender of Western Civilization, must own and fully control Arctic Greenland.
At the same time, roughly 80 percent of Greenland’s population of approximately 57,000 people resides – not surprisingly – in Sub-Arctic Greenland, primarily in towns such as Nuuk (about 18,000), Qaqortoq, and Paamiut. These are the vast majority of Greenlanders who enjoy the “Scandinavian welfare system” recently extolled by the Danish Foreign Minister, and who now are marching in the streets of Nuuk to remain part of Denmark.
So why not partition Greenland along the Arctic Circle, with Denmark selling – or, more appropriately, gifting – Arctic Greenland to the United States while retaining sovereignty over Sub-Arctic Greenland? Denmark occupies less than 17,000 square miles, whereas Sub-Arctic Greenland comprises approximately 280,000 square miles – an area more than sixteen times the size of Denmark itself! So the Danes hardly could be heard to complain that the “territorial integrity” of their Kingdom has been violated if it continues to include such a huge non-European land mass upon which four of every five Greenlanders live.
Furthermore, although I’m not qualified to intelligently address military matters, as a lay person, it seems that – with ownership and control of Arctic Greenland – the United States could ensure that Sub-Arctic Greenland never will fall under the hostile control of China, Russia, or any other adversary. Thus, ownership and control of Arctic Greenland seemingly would meet our vital national security requirements.
It is true that most of Greenland’s presently known rare Earth minerals have been found south of the Arctic Circle, and the United States should share in this natural wealth, given our historic role in protecting Greenland from the Nazis and others. But, as President Trump just said in Davos, those minerals lie below a deep layer of ice – making them particularly expensive to extract – and we do not currently need them for our vital economic or security interests. Moreover, this wealth could and should benefit Greenlanders themselves. And, as four-fifths of the island lies north of the Arctic Circle, it seems likely that additional deposits of important minerals and other resources will be discovered in Arctic Greenland as well.
Certainly, partitions have not always successfully resolved international disputes. The foolish neutering of Israel by partition in 1947 was one of the most disastrous (and historically baseless) decisions in modern history. At the same time, however, few would question the wisdom of having created Pakistan and, subsequently, Bangladesh by partition from India. Czechoslovakia was successfully partitioned into the peaceful and prosperous neighboring nations of Czechia and Slovakia. And partitions have resolved a number of African disputes.
So here’s my humble suggestion: We should partition Greenland into Arctic Greenland, to be owned by the United States, and Sub-Arctic Greenland, to be owned by Denmark. I believe this would satisfy the vital interests and objectives of both countries.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member