The recent push by former President Donald Trump to bring Greenland under American control has reignited a debate steeped in strategic miscalculation and economic reality. While framed as a necessity for national security, a closer examination reveals the proposal is fraught with problems, from existing treaty rights to the island's heavy economic dependence and the clear opposition of its people.
Strategic Need Already Met by Existing Treaties
Central to Trump's argument is the claim that America's strategic security depends on owning Greenland, specifically to counter a perceived Russian threat. However, this need is already comprehensively addressed by longstanding agreements. A 1951 treaty between the U.S. and Denmark allows for a permanent American military presence on the island. This agreement famously led to the establishment of Thule Air Base, which at its peak housed 10,000 personnel.
Today, the base, now known as Pituffik and operated by the U.S. Space Force, remains active. Crucially, nothing in the treaty prevents the United States from expanding this installation or opening new ones. Exercising these existing rights would enhance Western security in the Arctic without the political and financial baggage of annexation. It would also provide an economic boost to Greenland's 57,000 residents through military spending, a far more favourable arrangement for American taxpayers.
An Economic Basket Case the U.S. Doesn't Need
Acquiring Greenland would not be a strategic coup but a significant economic liability. The island's economy is heavily subsidized by Denmark, its former colonial ruler and current sovereign. Each year, Denmark provides Greenland with approximately $591 million in subsidies, accounting for about 60% of the local government's budget. This translates to over $10,000 for every resident.
In addition to this annual block grant, Denmark agreed last year to an extra $249 million for infrastructure initiatives. This culture of dependency is supported by Denmark's expansive welfare state, where taxes represent 45.2% of GDP, compared to 25.6% in the United States. Were the U.S. to take ownership, it would inherit a territory whose population is accustomed to substantial financial support, creating an expectation for the "gravy train" to continue under new management.
Overwhelming Local Opposition and Diplomatic Fallout
Perhaps the most significant flaw in the acquisition plan is the stark lack of local consent. A poll conducted in 2023 for Danish and Greenlandic media revealed that 85% of Greenlanders oppose joining the United States, with only 6% in favour. While a majority (56%) desire independence from Denmark, they simultaneously expect Danish financial support to continue even after gaining sovereignty.
Greenland's elected government, led by the pro-independence Democrats, has been unequivocal in its rejection. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen stated clearly, "If we have to choose between the U.S. and Denmark here and now, then we choose Denmark." This sentiment directly contradicts the American principle of government by the consent of the governed, a cornerstone highlighted in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
The proposal has also strained international relations. Several NATO allies, including France, Germany, and the U.K., recently sent small troop contingents to Greenland in a show of solidarity with Denmark, a move underscoring the diplomatic friction caused by Trump's demands. His subsequent threats to impose punitive tariffs on objecting nations further alienates allies and would ultimately be paid by American businesses and consumers.
In conclusion, the campaign to acquire Greenland is a solution in search of a problem. The United States already possesses the military access it needs through a durable treaty. Pursuing ownership would force American taxpayers to bankroll a dependent economy, impose U.S. rule on a vehemently opposed population, and needlessly damage critical alliances. For strategic, economic, and diplomatic reasons, the existing framework of cooperation is vastly superior to the costly and contentious path of annexation.
