How Could Donald Trump ‘Take’ Greenland?
Donald Trump has expressed a strong desire to acquire Greenland, and recent statements from the White House suggest that all options are on the table, including military considerations. While the prospect of a military operation represents only one of many potential strategies being evaluated, such an action could pose a significant threat to NATO unity and stability.
The Importance of Greenland
Trump cites Greenland as crucial for U.S. national security, alleging without evidence that the territory is overrun by Russian and Chinese military presence. Experts from the U.S., U.K., and Denmark weigh the various options available to the president, as well as the potential justifications for each.
Military Action: A Controversial Option
– Feasibility: Defense analysts believe a swift operation could be executed fairly easily due to Greenland’s sparse population of around 58,000, with approximately one-third residing in the capital, Nuuk.
– Limited Defense: Greenland lacks its own military, relying on Denmark for protection, which possesses few air and naval assets to cover its vast geography. The Danish Sirius Patrol predominantly polices the region using dog sleds.
– Increased Spending: Denmark has ramped up defense spending in the Arctic and North Atlantic, signaling a commitment to safeguarding its territory.
Despite the logistical feasibility, the fallout from any military action would be immense. Former officials and analysts emphasize that such a move would contravene international law and risk destabilizing U.S.-European alliances. Mick Mulroy, a former CIA officer, states, Not only are they no threat to the U.S., they are a treaty ally. Should the U.S. pursue a military option, Congress could invoke the War Powers Act to limit the president’s actions.
The Purchase of Greenland: Complexities and Challenges
While U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has indicated that a purchase might be the administration’s preferred route, Greenland and Denmark insist the territory is not for sale. Any acquisition would be intricate:
– Congressional Approval: Funds would require appropriation by Congress, and a treaty would need a two-thirds Senate majority—an uphill battle under current political dynamics.
– International Law: Prof. Monica Hakimi emphasizes the necessity of Greenlandic participation for any treaty to align with international law.
Estimations of the potential cost to purchase Greenland remain unclear. Such financial burdens could alienate Trump’s supporters who prioritize an America First agenda, making a military option more attractive if purchasing fails.
Winning Over Greenlanders
Despite polls indicating a desire for independence among Greenlanders, few show interest in joining the U.S. However, opportunities for influence could arise:
– Incentives: The U.S. could promote short-term financial benefits or long-term economic partnerships to win the favor of Greenland’s populace.
– Intelligence Efforts: Reports suggest U.S. intelligence agencies are closely monitoring the local independence movement, seeking supportive figures for U.S. goals.
Imran Bayoumi of the Atlantic Council argues that an influence campaign is far more plausible than military intervention, advocating for partnerships that could facilitate U.S. access to Greenland’s resources without alienating the local population.
Conclusion
The question of how Donald Trump could take Greenland is fraught with geopolitical complexities and ethical considerations. Any military operation would likely rally significant opposition domestically and internationally. While purchasing the territory poses its own set of challenges, efforts to sway Greenlanders through negotiations or partnerships might offer a more viable path. As geopolitical dynamics evolve, both the U.S. and Greenland face a long-term future that impacts not just their relationship but the broader NATO alliance.