Dem
47
GOP
53
Yesterday, Donald Trump again said that the U.S. must own Greenland for national security reasons. The White House also posted this cartoon on eX-Twitter:
Who is the intended audience? Americans? Greenlanders? Danes? If Greenlanders, it will likely backfire. They don't want to join America in any way, shape or form. In a poll from a year ago, 85% of Greenlanders said they do not want to become a part of the U.S., with only 6% saying they WOULD like that to happen. It is likely even worse now that Donald Trump is talking about annexing the island by military force. On Tuesday, Greenland's prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said that if Greenland has to choose between America and Denmark, it will choose Denmark.
What about Denmark? Yesterday, the Danish foreign minister, Lars Rasmussen. and Greenland's foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, had a meeting with J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Afterwards, Rasmussen and Motzfeldt held a press conference outside the Danish embassy in D.C. Rasmussen and Motzfeldt said the parties had a fundamental disagreement over the future of Greenland. In easy-to-understand terms, Trump wants to buy Greenland but Denmark doesn't want to sell it. At the presser, Rasmussen added: "We didn't manage to change the American position. It's clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland. We made it very, very clear that this is not in the interest of the Kingdom."
Yesterday, Denmark began moving defense forces to Greenland and said other European NATO members would soon do so as well. The ministry said the move was to train the troops in Arctic fighting, but didn't specify who the potential enemy might be. There is no way the European troops could stave off an American attack, but having them there trying to at least slow an American advance would be a major PR hit to Trump. If American troops have to force their way in, against even nominal resistance, it would be impossible for Trump to say to the American people: "The Greenlanders welcomed us with open arms." It is also worth noting that, even if you have a force of superior size, it can be very, very hard to gain control of an enormous, largely empty, very cold piece of land. Ask Napoleon, if you have any questions.
On the positive side, the parties agreed to set up a working group to address security issues and whether they could be addressed without changing Greenland's ownership. It is possible they will come up with something, but that is unlikely to satisfy Trump. At heart, he is a real estate developer, and he likes to buy ground and develop it. He sees Greenland as a large chunk of undeveloped land he could buy and develop in case his deal to buy Gaza doesn't work out. The two have different problems. Greenland is cold and has no people. Gaza is hot and has a lot of people. However they are similar in that neither of the current owners is interested in selling the place to him. How long will it be before he gets the idea of moving all the people in Gaza to Greenland, so he can build hotels and condos in Gaza? That would violate international law, of course, but so what?
What about Congress? Is it enthusiastic about annexing Greenland? Well, a bipartisan team of Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) has written a bill that would ban using U.S. funds to annex the territory of a NATO member state without the consent of that member. It is too soon to see how much support it has, but probably all Democrats will support it and likely some Republicans as well. Murkowski said "The mere notion that America would use our vast resources against our allies is deeply troubling and must be wholly rejected by Congress in statute."
What about the American people? Quinnipiac University ran a poll on the subject. It turns out Project Greenland is just as unpopular with Americans as it is with Greenlanders, with 86% of Americans opposed to taking the island by force and only 9% approving of the idea. When was the last time you saw 86% of Americans agreeing on anything? We bet if QU asked: "Do you approve of the American flag?" they wouldn't get 86% approval.
So, Greenlanders don't like the idea of being annexed, Denmark doesn't like it, members of Congress don't like it, and the American people don't like it. We are pretty sure no other country approves. So who does? Donald Trump. He is the only one, against essentially the entire world. Will he do it? At this point it is unclear, but the QU poll might actually deter Trump since doing something 86% of Americans don't want is not going to help the Republicans in November.
Ironically, Trump's approach is making it even less likely that he will be able to take Greenland without military force, which would destroy NATO and pit the entire E.U. against him. Avaaraq Olsen, the mayor of Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, said: "People here are getting more and more concerned because Trump's statements keep getting worse." He also said: "We were open for business, but when they showed that kind of disrespect, we lost that interest. We cannot be bought." If Trump were smart (which he clearly is not), he would have pushed for Greenland to become independent. Many Greenlanders want that. Then, as an independent nation, Trump could offer them security guarantees, money, investment, and more and they might go for it. But that is not Trump's way. His way is to pick on someone weaker than himself and then bully that person (or country) into submission to prove he is the boss. He would never, ever try this stunt with Chinese President Xi Jinping because Xi would just refuse, point blank. Then what?
Greenlanders' dislike of Trump has gotten so intense that the Greenland Dog Sledding Association revoked the invitation to Trump's new Greenland envoy, Jeff Landry, to attend the upcoming Avannaata Qimussersua. Take that, Trump.
Greenland is a hotspot for the intersection of geopolitical and climate concerns. Greenland has a lot of ice and it is melting fast due to global warming. The island has lost 100 billion metric tons of ice in the past year alone. That is enough ice to provide every adult on the planet with 1,500 margaritas every day for an entire year. As a consequence of this melting, the global sea level has gone up 4" since 1993. If this continues unabated, it will have disastrous consequences for heavily populated coastal regions all over the world.
If enough ice melts, it could also affect global trade. China is working on a Polar Silk Road, which would cut shipping times from China to Europe in half. The new route through the Arctic would not go through Greenland, but could possibly pass by it, making control of that area crucial. This is one of the reasons Trump is interested in acquiring the island, but routes could also be safeguarded through NATO, without U.S. ownership against the will of the people who live there. Here is a rough map of the Polar Silk Road:
It is hard to see how this will end. Trump might be willing to destroy NATO. He never liked it in the first place, but he might not like some of the consequences. Suppose Germany decided that since America is no longer an ally, but an enemy, Germany needs nuclear weapons to defend itself. No one doubts that German engineers could build a quality product if the political leadership made a decision to do so. On top of that, sharing of intelligence would drop to zero. And trade would be hit hard, possibly resulting in a worldwide recession for which Trump would get the blame. Tourism would take a big hit, affecting the economy. There are some known unknowns but probably many unknown unknowns as well.
One of the known unknowns is how the isolationist voters who voted for Trump because he promised to stay out of foreign wars will react if American soldiers have been deployed to Venezuela, Greenland, Cuba, and other places Trump sees as rightfully his. And if American soldiers abroad begin dying as a result of sabotage and guerrilla actions, how will that affect public opinion in the U.S.?
Another known unknown is what Republican primary candidates say at town halls when a voter asks: "If you are elected and Trump asks Congress for funding to invade Venezuela, Greenland, Cuba, or some other place, will you vote for the funding?" Could be fun to watch the candidates squirm. (V)