Denmark and the U.S. are set to meet this week to discuss president Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently hinted at President Trump’s willingness to use military force to seize the island. In a closed-door meeting with members of Congress, Rubio reportedly insisted that the administration’s real goal is to purchase Greenland. A growing number of key Republicans in Congress now publicly oppose pressuring Denmark into selling Greenland. More than 90% of Americans disapprove of using force to annex Greenland.
Citizens and elected officials are right to oppose any attempt to formally add Greenland to the United States. The public discourse, though, has largely missed the mark in articulating why the administration should avoid this temptation. One commonly cited reason for opposing the acquisition of Greenland is that doing so would be “stupid.” Sen. Thom Tillis recently said that he is “sick of stupid,” while Sen. John Kennedy called the idea of an invasion “weapons-grade stupid.” Another line of argument is that antagonizing Denmark would undercut NATO, which could lead to a less stable world. This scenario, argues New York Times columnist David French, would likely lead to the return of great power wars.
Neither of these positions truly engages with Trump’s stance on Greenland. To show why restraint here is the right move, it is vital to have a clear picture of the world today.
First, it is important to note that Greenland is strategically important now and will remain so for the rest of this century. It contains important natural resources, is located in a militarily advantageous position on the Arctic sea, and is a potential choke point for increasingly lucrative trade routes. Next, it is important to note that Denmark has been an excellent ally to the U.S. In 1951, the two countries agreed on a plan for Americans to provide for Greenland’s defense. In the ensuing 75 years, Denmark has consistently granted American requests for security cooperation. Even the State Department’s current website praises Denmark for its ample contributions to American interests.
The longstanding arrangement allows for U.S. forces to be stationed in Greenland and there is no reason to believe Denmark is considering retracting that permission. Furthermore, the U.S. will have to prioritize where and how it engages with military allies in the coming few decades. The U.S. now struggles to build naval ships. The war in Ukraine continues to drag on, soon to be entering its fifth year. China remains aggressive in the western Pacific. American military analysts remain worried that Xi will attempt to take Taiwan by 2027. The Middle East remains chaotic, in spite of Iran and Hezbollah’s degraded capabilities. Meanwhile, the U.S. military is struggling to retain troops, even though recent recruitment has gone up. Servicemembers who do leave are disproportionately likely to possess hard-to-replace skills.
In this environment it is not cowardice, but prudence to choose carefully how the U.S. invests its resources. This includes material and personnel assets, as well as political capital. Talk that the U.S. must do everything for every ally in order to maintain credibility is overblown. And yet, it is hard to imagine a more antagonistic move against a more helpful ally than the U.S. coercively (whether that be by force or by imposing an annexation agreement) taking Greenland from Denmark. Doing so would violate both the letter and spirit not only of NATO’s charter, but of the bilateral agreement that governs American-Danish cooperation via Greenland. National interests can change over time, but a country’s leadership ought to be selective at when and how it deviates from its agreed to treaty obligations.
In this case, the Trump administration is right to insist on the strategic importance of Greenland. It is misguided, though, to think that the bully pulpit is the way to secure American prosperity in the Arctic region. Continuing to work closely with Denmark, while looking for opportunities to align American resources with American priorities is the best path forward.
Last year’s National Security Strategy report argues that “a strategy must evaluate, sort, and prioritize." It goes on to say that the administration wants “to maintain the United States’ unrivaled soft power through which [the U.S.] exercises positive influence throughout the world.” In order to keep (or regain) this advantage the U.S. should treat its most important and cooperative allies well. The U.S. does not (as the National Security Strategy puts it) have to continue “propping up the entire world like Atlas,” but it benefits Washington to act with honesty, respect, and fairness toward its partners.
