Saturday, February 01, 2025


Canada, Who Will Stand On Guard For Thee?



 January 31, 2025
Facebook

Photograph Source: mark.watmough – CC BY 2.0

The melodic Canadian national anthem proclaims that its sons and daughters “stand on guard for thee”. Well, now is the time as Canada faces insults, lies and threats from Trump. The idea that the US would annex Canada and make it one of its states, has provoked palpable indignation among Canadian people, Indigenous and non-indigenous. Ironically, Canada which celebrates its ‘special relationship’ with the USA, has been thrust into the category of nations vilified by the US: the long-standing animosity towards Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua remains, but now Trump has added US allies Canada, Panama, Denmark (EU), and Colombia. One can only wonder who’s next.

Canadian spokespersons deny these outrages but at the same time add with a bit of a whine: “but, but, we are your best friends!” To its detriment, Canada has long ignored Henry Kissinger, well-known former US Secretary of State, who declared that the US has no friends, only interests.

It has been a rude awakening for all Canadians especially its elites. Suddenly, they are mentioning “Canadian sovereignty”, a concept that it seemed only the Quebecois and indigenous peoples understood. Certainly, sovereignty is a concept that Canadian governments have often willfully ignored or belittled with respect to other countries such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Haiti, among others.

Unlike his father Pierre, who was a Canadian nationalist, in 2017 Trudeau the younger astonishingly expressed the view that Canada is a “post-national” country and that “there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada”.

This would not have been acceptable to the working classes in towns, cities, farms, factories, logging camps, fishing towns, throughout the country where the Maple Leaf flag flies proudly, had Trudeau’s concept been actually discussed in participation with the people of Canada.  It was a sheer urban elitist commentary. An example of how far the Canadian political elites especially, have problems listening to their own people. In fact, the real defense of Canada will lie as it always has done, in the hands of its working and middle classes, and ironically, with the indigenous peoples, and their pressure and votes upon the political elites. Unlike in the US, there is in Canada a working Parliament where, despite lobbyists, votes do count, and not vast fortunes of the billionaires.

Trudeau is an ideological product of the financial and commercial elites that embraced globalization and the US empire, wanting to “play with the big boys”. After the II World War, Canadian political and cultural elites basically decided to join US imperial capitalism.  In the 1960s. the Canadian intellectual, George Grant, railed against this situation mourning what he felt was the end of Canada as an independent state as the ruling class looked to the US for its final authority in politics and culture. (George Grant, “Lament for a nation, the defeat of Canadian nationalism”1965) Through the years, the US has attempted repeatedly to dominate Canada over lumber, water, fishing rights and other trade issues.

Although there have been almost constant US/Canada trade disagreements that federal and provincial officials have had to contend with, at another level Canadian elites threw their hat and their county, into the hands of the US empire that was consolidating south of their borders. So, they send their children to Ivy League universities, approve of mergers with US corporations, and take vacations in Florida. Canadian media increasingly relies on USA outlets such as Reuters and Associated Press, for much of its news, and most significantly, Canada backs the US in almost every vote at the UN and backs US foreign policy, whether it be a sensible one or an irresponsible regime change adventure. There were exceptions with two Liberal Prime Ministers who withstood tremendous US pressure:  Pierre Trudeau who refused to break relations with China or Cuba during the Cold War and Jean Chretien who refused to join the US invasion of Iraq.

The US has, to a certain extent, already “invaded” Canada in a back handed, quiet, sort of way. The symbol of US “takeover” is plainly visible in Ottawa, where the enormous, ugly, US fortress-like embassy was planted in the middle of the nation’s capital, like a giant carbuncle proclaiming: “we are a permanent feature of your nation”.

It is surprising, especially to many of us in Canada of Latin American origin, how unconcerned most Canadians have been about the encroaching US influence in its political and cultural life. A great scandal was whipped up when there were accusations of China influencing Canadian politics, but when US ambassadors publicly weigh-in with their opinions, nobody bats an eye.”

As to the Canadian military establishment, it has long been integrated to a great degree with that of the US. Rory Philip Garnice of Michigan University, examining the direct and indirect US influence on Canada, states that, “During the course of the 20th century, American influence has pervaded all areas of the Canadian military and defense policy, up to and including border defense, national security, and international obligations

The way the US has influenced Canadian government policies can be viewed as “unanticipated militarism”, as Morris Janowitz coined it, whereby a gradual acceptance of policies that do not always coincide with the government’s own assessments.

The problem of course, is not so much the unequal power in the relationship between the nations, which happens all the time between trading nations, but its exclusivity. When Canadians talk politically about “south of the border” it means exclusively the United States. Most of Canada’s trade is directed at the USA, not the world at large. Certainly, it has to do with the convenient geographical location, but this concentration of trade has placed Canada in a most dependent position. For a nation that supposedly espoused globalization, the globe seemed very circumscribed to its immediate south, not even Europe as before.

There appears to be a veritable blind spot toward the other half of the hemisphere: Latin America and the Caribbean. These areas seem to exist in the Canadian imagination only in so far as their beaches and cerveza could be enjoyed; not as real, substantial political, cultural, and trade partners. Except lately, and quite neglected by Canadian media, when Canada did some imperial “housekeeping” for the US overthrowing the government in Haiti, (see: https://yvesengler.com/category/haiti/) and with the Lima Group and its attempts to overthrow the legitimate Venezuelan government by rounding up regional right-wing governments to help in the “regime change” policy of the United States.

It was not always so. In 1921 Canada had a full plan of defense against the USA and between 1939-1951, “The primary preoccupation of military intelligence and planning was in response to an attack by the United States.” ( See: Yves Engler, Canada’s Military Spending”, counterpunch, 10 Jan 2025)  Times changed after the second World War. A “defense” plan was concocted together with the only country that can realistically invade Canada: the USA. Hundreds of treaties and accords were signed between the two countries, allowing Canada into NORAD to be counted with the big boys. (Yves Engler, op cit) The word “sovereignty” was essentially absent from political discourse. The elite became partners of the empire, turning Canada into a sort of “branch plant of US capitalism”. Canada abandoned a “middle power strategy” of the Cold War period and peacekeeping and shifted to aligning itself to US militarism, and priorities of hegemonic power. (Jerome Klassen, “Joining Empire”, U of T, 2014)

Economically, this meant that commercial elites did not exert themselves much to buy and sell to the rest of the world.  Rather they entrusted the bulk of Canada’s economic fortunes to the US market almost exclusively, it being so close and so accessible. And the NAFTA/USMCA trade deal with US and Mexico consolidated those ties.

Canada’s multiculturalism is a source of cultural enrichment as well as labour necessity. Although unfortunately, the far right since then has tried its best to malign multiculturalism, the fact remains that Canada has added to its British, French and Indigenous roots, the cultural and social benefits of a diverse, cosmopolitan population.  Even though officially little effort has been given to “nation building”, except in Quebec, i.e. actively promoting the sense and essence of shared fellowship, this has not stopped a fierce loyalty to Canada, not just among those born there, but also and perhaps especially, by those who have found a new haven and welcoming home.  And since “The wealthy rarely maintain their nationalism when it is in conflict with the economic drive of the day”, the elite thus became basically anti-nationalistic, more than that, anti-national. (See: George Grant, “Lament for a nation, the defeat of Canadian nationalism”, 1965).

Until Trump.

Now it must be said, peace is a definite, indisputable, social and moral good, and peace between such adjacent neighbors as the USA and Canada is without a doubt something that should be treasured. But it needs to be supported by both parties. Well intentioned, but ineffective UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain found out too soon that there is no appeasing a bully and today, the US is governed by a bully and his cabal of self-serving billionaires. To Canadian dismay the erstwhile “nice neighbour” has morphed into a monstrous plutocracy.

Trump has threatened not just economic war with a 25% tariff on all Canadian goods, but also actual annexation. He insulted the prime minister of Canada calling him “a governor” and Canada a state, and his sidekick Musk called him “girl”. He wrongly accuses Canada of “robbing” the US because they (population of +300 m) buy more from Canada (population 40 m) than Canada buys from them. It’s called trade, not robbery, but this subtleness escapes Trump’s understanding.  He does not know the real significance of a trade imbalance and has not figured out that his own population would have to pay the tariffs. He ignores the closeness of both country’s armed forces, the unique support Canada gave the US on 9/11 and ignores that most of the US energy imports come from Canada.

In typically Canadian fashion, Trudeau hurried to assure Trump that Canada was the US’s best friend, but Trump took this as a sign of weakness and submission. Since ‘being nice’ did not work, Justin Trudeau asserted that, “there is not a snowball’s chance in hell” that Canada could be annexed by the USA, which is quite true. He has also threatened to stop Canadian oil, gas and electricity to flow to the US. President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico and the king of Denmark did not try “nice”; both immediately, in no uncertain terms, rebuffed and rebuked Trump’s insulting proposals regarding their countries. As for Trump’s threat to take over the Panama Canal, it has caused indignation not just in Panama, but has widely united Latin America and the Caribbean, regardless of ideologies, against Trump’s annexation ambitions. As well, his demeaning treatment of the Latin American migrants he is deporting in handcuffs and chains on military planes has united the region against the USA.

Trump is stomping on US key allies. So, what should Canada do these next 4 years of the Trump presidency now that this farce of being the US’s best friend has ended?

I have two recommendations:

First: Canada should take a good look at the disastrous example of the captain of the Titanic. After hitting an iceberg, the captain did nothing but wait to be rescued; a rescue that did not come fast enough. (https://www.history.com/news/titanic-captain-edward-smith-final-hours-death) His big mistake was to think there was no alternative. Yet he had resources, expertise and manpower at his fingertips. He had carpenters, engineers, plenty of manpower; he had resources of all sorts: wood, tools, chairs, furniture that could be turned into rafts and boats; he had all sorts of floatable objects; he had warm clothing and plenty of food to distribute. He could have tried to block the incoming water; he could have built the missing lifeboats and rafts.  He even could have transported people onto the gigantic iceberg or anchored makeshift lifeboats onto it.  The ship may have sunk anyway but he could have saved many lives.

Instead of thinking that the sky will fall on the Canadian economy if Trump imposes a 25% tax on its goods, we should realize that a 25% tariff on Canadian goods is not enough to bankrupt resource rich Canada. It may do some damage, but it will not come close to destroying the economy as Trump threatens. Canada should examine what its assets are and what alternatives it has. Canada is one of the most resource rich countries in the world: it has immense natural resources (wood, oil, gas, minerals, agriculture, manufacturing capacity), immense human resources with a highly educated and skilled population due to its superb public education system, telecommunications industry, stable government and social peace federally and provincially. There is an entire world out there of markets to buy and sell to with nations that have no design on Canada’s sovereignty and with whom it can develop a more sustainable and less dependent economy.

Second: Canada should humbly realize that it can learn from a country very far south of it: Venezuela. For Venezuela, a 25% tariff on its goods would have been a light slap on the wrists. Instead, this country -that is no threat to USA nor any other country- has been criminalized, demonized and excluded from the international financial system, by more than 1000 illegal sanctions thrust upon it.

Venezuela has the misfortune of having the largest oil reserves in the world which the US covets. Therefore, under false excuses about defending democracy, the US imposed illegal economic sanctions and an economic and financial blockade that are far reaching, malicious and a crime against humanity as UN human rights raconteurs have decried. ( Alfred de Zayas  https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/18/economic-sanctions-kill/; Alina Douhan: https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/12/world/us-venezuela-sanctions-alina-douhan-intl/index.html)

The country was barred from the international financial system by being denied access to SWIFT, all its assets in foreign banks (7 billion $) were stolen, its assets at the IMF stolen (5 billion $, its CITGO oil company stolen (10 billion $), and its 31 tons of gold in the Bank of England stolen (2 billion $). Venezuela was prevented from buying and selling on the international market; it could not produce nor sell its oil; it could not buy food nor medicines, and even during the pandemic COVID vaccines were denied it. The government’s income was reduced by 95% and Venezuela’s GDP suffered the greatest drop by any country even in war time. In the last 7 years the blockade and sanctions have cost the nation a total of $642 billion. (Yvan Gil, Ultimas Noticias, 16 Sept. 2024) An estimated 100,000 Venezuelans have died as a direct result of the inhuman US sanctions that were fully backed by Canada and the EU.  (https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/03/18/economic-sanctions-kill/)

This was a catastrophic situation, driving many to leave the country, and yet the economy did not collapse, there was no famine, the government did not fall. Today, in 2025, Venezuela has risen from the ashes like the Phoenix. The government of Venezuela, led by President Nicolas Maduro, looked at its resources and alternatives. It developed strategies to diversity the economy, promote its agriculture, export other natural resources, promote domestic manufacturing and commerce, and open other international markets for its products. It was helped by the solidarity and support it received in aid and loans from allies such as China, Russia, India, Iran, and many others, and it survived and eliminated hyperinflation.  The Venezuelan government was joined in this patriotic economic endeavour by millions of Venezuelans organized in many grassroots organizations including communes as well as private enterprises that helped withstand the sanctions.  Venezuela now has the fastest growing GDP in the region – according to Credit Suisse it is at 8% per year and rising, exceeding even the government’s expectations. (Roger Harris, “How Venezuela is Overcoming the United States Blockade”, Popular Resistance, 27 June, 2024 https://popularresistance.org/how-venezuela-is-overcoming-the-united-states-blockade/.

 Venezuela is now virtually self-sufficient in food. It delivered more 132 million food boxes in 2024 alone. It has[PV1]  built about 5 million housing units in the past 7 years, and during COVID had one of the lowest death rates in the entire continent. [1] (https://mazo4f.com/venezuela-presenta-el-menor-numero-de-infectados-y-muertos-diarios-por-covid-19-en-americahttps://www.telesurtv.net/datafactory/covid/es/venezuela.htmlhttps://cotejo.info/2020/09/diosdado-muertes-xmillon-hab/)

Venezuela looked at the wide world beyond the United States, which had been practically its only oil buyer in the past and survived.  The USA, Canada and their allies failed to isolate it diplomatically or economically. And its population according to consistent polls, has a positive, optimistic outlook of their future. https://www.instagram.com/hinterlacesnet/reel/C_yXgm8sKMo/

In mid-December of 1999 Venezuela suffered a very unusual natural weather event: for three days a rain cloud remained stationary over a large part of its coast.  Torrential rains saturated the land provoking fearsome floods and landslides, killing perhaps up to 30,000 people. Hugo Chávez had just won the presidential elections that month and with a very inexperienced new government had to contend with this terrible emergency. President Chávez, a military man, was able to command soldiers and military experts to help with the situation with expediency. But it was a huge task.

The United States offered soldiers and bulldozers; Cuba offered physicians. President Chávez declined the US offer and accepted the Cuban doctors.  The oligarchy was enraged, but he simply explained: they had sufficient soldiers and bulldozers could not be used because the land was too slippery and there were still buried people; but there was a stark need for experienced doctors. Venezuela’s existing private health care system was incapable of dealing with the emergency. (Today the public health care covers about 90% of the population, for free.) However, Chávez also suspected a Trojan Horse: that once US soldiers entered, it would be very hard to get them to leave.

This is the type of precaution, or suspicion if you like, that comes from a knowledge of the long history of US and Latin American/ Caribbean relationships which,

“…the most important lesson taught by the history of the United States in Latin America: democracy, social and economic justice, and political liberalization have never been achieved through an embrace of empire but rather through resistance to its commands.” (G. Grandin, “Empire’s Workshop”, p.222, 2006)

Hugo Chávez was for many years a history professor at the Venezuelan Military Academy and he knew and understood its lessons.

Canada does not have to resign itself to almost complete reliance on the US economy. Its diverse and highly educated and well-trained population can flourish without being so dependent on the US. Why tie Canada to a nation that betrays trust, and is in decline which those who voted to its highest office a convicted felon and sexual predator cannot yet see? The US has debilitating social divisions due to stark inequality, rampant racism and crime, has dangerous underfunded infrastructure, and its working class is hobbled by lack of social security and health services and antagonism towards its unions.  It would seem to be contrary to Canadian self-interest to persist in a policy of adhering itself entirely to US hegemonic goals. This is demonstrating to be counter-productive and harmful to the welfare, and even existence of the Canadian state.

The political structure of the Canadian parliamentary system is not in crisis, billionaires do not own it, and the legitimacy of its political institutions are not in question despite problems and challenges. The planet needs a Canada that does not deny climate change and can add its expertise in confronting the many environmental problems the world faces. Canada can begin now to set a course toward other international markets and allies, to sell Canadian goods and services and buy what is needed, to diversify its economy and make it more sustainable and equitable. It could also bolster its governance by reforming its first-past-the-post electoral system. There is every indication that it will remain an open society that aspires to justice and equality, even in the face of setbacks and obstacles.

My hope is that the good Canadian working people will demand backbone and creativity from our leaders and make them really look at the hemisphere that Canada is part of, respect the sovereignty of all Latin American and Caribbean nations, be a better neighbour to them, and stop doing the US’s dirty work in the region. Canada should not look to its immediate, unfriendly and exploitative southern neighbor for lessons in well-being or prosperity.

Maybe, under the heavy load of incompetent leadership, the US will at last discover that it can learn from other nations and help build a world of mutual support rather than division and conflict.

María Páez Victor, Ph.D. is a Venezuelan born sociologist living in Canada. 














Oil, Minerals, and Crypto — Corporate America Has Big Plans for Greenland

A Trump takeover of Greenland could open the door to tech moguls’ mineral interests and their utopian aspirations.

January 31, 2025
Source: The Lever





President Donald Trump started his second term with his sights set on Greenland.

When Trump first proposed buying the arctic nation during his first administration, it was treated like a joke. But in a phone call last week with Denmark’s prime minister, who controls the autonomous territory’s foreign policy, the president doubled down on his efforts to seize power. In the “aggressive and confrontational” conversation, Trump threatened tariffs if he didn’t get his way. In a news conference earlier this month, he also refused to rule out the use of military force. Now Denmark is taking him seriously: on Monday, it announced a $2 billion military expansion in the Arctic.

Though the island is not for sale, the president emphasized Greenland’s importance to US national security. Left unspoken: a US takeover could weaken the country’s mining laws and ban on private property, aiding Trump donors’ plans to profit from the island’s mineral deposits and build a libertarian techno-city.

Trump, who has summarized his own natural resources policy as “drill, baby, drill,” would likely approach the island’s natural resources quite differently from Greenland’s current government, which has opposed large extractive projects.

In 2019, Trump’s ambassador to Denmark and Greenland visited a major rare-earth mining project on the island shortly before Trump’s first calls to buy the country. Opposition to the mine ushered liberal political party Inuit Ataqatigiit into power two years later, which halted the mine and banned all future oil development.

The president’s renewed intention to take over Greenland has reignited debates over its sovereignty, as the country grapples with the trade-offs between economic opportunity and independence from Denmark. As the country’s glaciers recede, it’s also facing sweeping climate-driven transformations, threatening traditional industries like fishing and hunting and exposing valuable mineral resources.

These shifts have prompted interest from powerful players associated with Trump. Tech moguls in the front row of his inauguration, like Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos, are also investors in a start-up aiming to mine western Greenland for materials crucial to the artificial intelligence boom.

That company, KoBold Metals, uses artificial intelligence to locate and extract rare earth minerals. Their proprietary algorithm parses government-funded geological surveys and other data to locate significant deposits. The program pinpointed southwest Greenland’s rugged coastline, where the company now has a 51 percent stake in the Disko-Nuussuaq project, searching for minerals like copper.

Just two weeks before some of its investors were glad-handing at the Capitol celebrations, KoBold Metals raised $537 million in its latest funding round, bringing its valuation to almost $3 billion. Among the contributors was a leading venture capital firm founded by Marc Andreessen, an early Silicon Valley entrepreneur who has helped shape the administration’s technology policies, including consulting with Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency as a self-proclaimed “unpaid intern.”

“We believe in adventure,” Andreessen wrote in a lengthy 2023 manifesto that outlined his criticisms of centralized government, advocating for technologists to take control, “rebelling against the status quo, mapping uncharted territory, conquering dragons, and bringing home the spoils for our community.” Connie Chan, a general partner at his venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, is listed as a KoBold director in its 2022 Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

In addition to KoBold, Andreessen has also backed other ventures eyeing the arctic nation: he is a significant investor in Praxis Nation, a project aiming to use Greenland to establish a “crypto state,” a self-governing, experimental community built around libertarian ideals and technology like cryptocurrency.

The venture is also funded in part by Pronomos Capital, a venture capital group founded by the grandson of economist Milton Friedman and bankrolled by libertarian figures such as Peter Thiel, whose own family reportedly managed a uranium mine in Namibia. Pronomos aims to create private, business-friendly charter cities like Praxis, often in developing countries where investors could write their own laws and regulations.

These “broligarchs” now have the ear of the president. Thiel has been a significant supporter of Trump, throwing millions of dollars behind him throughout his political career and introducing him to current Vice President J. D. Vance.

Most notable, in December, Trump announced Thiel’s partner Ken Howery as his Danish ambassador, making his intentions explicitly clear: “The United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” he wrote on TruthSocial, his social media platform.

Greenland’s prime minister Múte Egede flatly rejected the idea, responding on Facebook, “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.”
When the Price Is Too High

For centuries, the fight to control Greenland has revolved around its natural resources. The ice-gripped country has been part of Denmark since 1721 when a merchant-backed missionary expedition sought to spread Christianity to its Inuit population — and expand whaling and trade routes.

Greenland gained autonomy from Denmark in 1979, though the Danes continued to control its foreign relations and defense, allowing the United States to build and operate military bases there. In a 2008 referendum, Greenlanders voted for greater independence, allowing them to take control of their natural resources along with other state functions.

That same year, the US Geological Survey found the country had one of the world’s largest potential oil and gas reserves. More recent estimates suggest that the Arctic could hold 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas. The report drew the attention of major oil companies like ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and BP, which began acquiring exploration licenses and conducting surveys around Greenland and its offshore areas.

But producing oil in such harsh conditions is difficult and expensive due to high transportation costs and infrastructure limitations. ExxonMobil, for example, withdrew its application in 2013, as a downward trend in oil prices made further development economically unfeasible.

When Siumut, a pro-independence political party, came into power earlier that year, leader Aleqa Hammond declared the country would instead transition to mineral extraction, saying, “If we want greater autonomy from Denmark, we have to finance it ourselves. This means finding new sources of income.” In 2014, the government announced a four-year national plan to create “new income and employment opportunities in the area of mineral resources activities.”

Because Greenland’s vast mineral deposits often contain uranium, however, the burgeoning mining industry quickly came into conflict with Denmark’s strict policy against extracting radioactive materials. Denmark chose not to develop nuclear energy in the 1980s, and has comparatively strict regulations around radiation protections.

One of the measures the Siumut-led government took in 2014 was proposing a bill that would have limited public access to environmental information and decision-making processes around mineral extraction. It also lowered environmental standards for uranium mining.

The bill failed to pass, but with Siumut’s support, an international project hoping to extract uranium and rare-earth metals gained preliminary approval. The Australian-based company Greenland Minerals (now called Energy Transition Minerals) found backing from Chinese Shenghe Resources Holdings, and brought Trump’s Greenland ambassador Carla Sands to the site for a visit in July 2019. The following month, Trump announced he wanted to buy the island, comparing it to “a large real estate deal.”

Sands, a former chiropractor and soap opera actress, now works for the America First Policy Institute, a conservative think tank concerned with strengthening the US mineral supply chains, among other nationalist issues.

Energy Transition Minerals’ proposed mine triggered massive controversy: concerns over the potential impact on critical fishing industries and food supplies ushered the Siumut party out of decades of power in 2021. “There is an ongoing, generational dialectic,” says Barry Zellen, a senior fellow of Arctic Security at the Institute of the North, between pro-development and pro-subsistence movements “that tends to swing pendularly.”

As the more left-leaning Inuit Ataqatigiit party took over, it quickly passed a law reinstating limits around uranium that revoked Energy Transition Minerals’ permits and banned all future oil and gas exploration.

“The price of oil extraction is too high,” the party wrote in a statement at the time. “This is based upon economic calculations, but considerations of the impact on climate and the environment also play a central role in the decision.”

These kinds of environmental protections are exactly what Trump aims to remove from American mining. On his own first day in office, one of Trump’s many executive orders directed government officials to remove “undue burdens” on the industry, so that the United States could become “the leading producer and processor of nonfuel minerals, including rare earth minerals.”
“I Went to Greenland to Try to Buy It”

The push for control of the arctic country comes as deep-pocketed investors like Andreessen have been drawn to start-ups hoping to build experimental enclaves, sold by the promise of freedom from the constraints of government.

Proposals for these cryptostates have sprung up in Honduras, Nigeria, the Marshall Islands, and Panama, the latter of which Trump has also recently proposed taking over by military force. While each concept looks a little different, often the sales pitch includes replacing taxes and regulations with cryptocurrency and blockchain.

For Praxis, these utopian dreams have led to Greenland, which is often incorrectly imagined as an unpopulated frontier. “I went to Greenland to try to buy it,” Praxis founder Dryden Brown posted on X in November, noting he first became interested in the island “when Trump offered to buy it in 2019.” Once in Nuuk, he learned that the country has long sought independence from Denmark and that many Greenlanders support sovereignty, though the country remains reliant on Denmark for financial support. It currently receives $500 million a year in Danish subsidies that account for 20 percent of the economy.

“They do not want to be ‘bought,’” Brown belatedly discovered, concluding, “There is an obvious opportunity here.” He proposed taxes from an independently run city like Praxis could help replace Danish subsidies.

Greenland, however, does not allow private property, an arrangement that historically has given communities a stronger voice in determining how or if its natural resources are developed — and could prove a problem for Brown’s planned utopia. But perhaps that could change under a new government.

On Monday, in response to a post referencing “Trump’s projects related to Greenland,” Praxis’s official X account — whose bio reads “We’re meant for more” below a version of the endeavor’s hallucinogenic flag — boasted about “A new post-state in the far North.”

The start-up “nation” has raised $525 million, though Brown, who dropped out of New York University and was fired from his last hedge fund job, hasn’t shared many specifics on Praxis’s website about his proposal for Greenland. (His previous efforts to build a city somewhere in the Mediterranean have also so far remained vague, beyond a branding guide that focused on “traditional, European/Western beauty standards” and recruiting tech employees with “hot girls.”)

But other tech tycoons’ plans for the island are more concrete.
“This Is About Critical Minerals”

Greenland is warming at a much faster rate than the rest of the planet, causing its glaciers to precipitously retreat. As the ice recedes, these valuable deposits are becoming more accessible. A 2023 European Commission survey revealed that Greenland has twenty-five out of thirty-four minerals classified as critical raw materials, or resources that are essential to the green energy transition but have a high risk of disrupted supply chains. The country boasts some of the world’s largest deposits of nickel and cobalt, and collectively, its mineral reserves almost equal those of the United States.

This wealth of resources has drawn the attention of companies like KoBold Metals, whose Silicon Valley backers have a vested interest in supplying materials for the tech industry.

KoBold has positioned itself as providing critical solutions for climate change, facilitating a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by supplying the materials needed for batteries and other renewable technologies. The company hailed President Joe Biden’s use of the Defense Production Act to encourage mining in 2022, along with the Inflation Reduction Act’s measures to subsidize international mining for rare earth minerals.

In Greenland, KoBold Metals’ exploration licenses focus on searching for nickel, copper, cobalt, and platinum-group minerals — materials important for green energy, but also for data centers’ rapid growth.

KoBold’s primary development so far has been developing a copper mine in Zambia, the largest such find in a century. Copper is used as a key material in the construction of data centers, and is crucial for artificial intelligence’s infrastructure. The AI boom is expected to nearly double the demand for copper by 2050. “We invested in KoBold,” OpenAI chief executive officer Sam Altman said, to “find new deposits.”

Its Zambia venture, too, has been part of a global power struggle, as the Biden administration backed the development of a railway to transport metals from the region to a port in Angola. The initiative was part of a broader US effort to counter China’s growing presence in Africa, offering investments as an alternative to its Belt and Road Initiative, a trade and infrastructure package.

KoBold’s top executive, however, likes to focus on lithium. “The growth [of lithium demand] is sort of staggering,” KoBold CEO Kurt House said in a 2023 presentation at Stanford. “It’s like a 30x increase in global production that you need.” One of the places the United States might turn to for this critical mineral is Greenland, where promising deposits were recently discovered.

“Everyone wants to have lithium” for its role in creating batteries, says Majken D. Poulsen, a geologist at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. She explains the first exploration for lithium in Greenland was just conducted last summer in collaboration with the US State Department. Under Biden, the agency also helped the country draft a mining investment law, aimed at encouraging investment in Greenland.

Though quite different in tone, Trump’s Greenland bluster shares similar goals. Charlie Byrd, an investment manager at global assets management firm Cordiant Capital, is one of many investors now hoping the president’s gambit will result in policy changes that are more favorable to foreign investment. “There is no doubt that that would lead to bigger institutional involvement and more strategic investment,” he told trade publication Institutional Investor this week.

Much of this interest is driven by tensions with China, which currently accounts for around 70 percent of global rare-earth mining and 90 percent of its processing. This gives the Asian powerhouse enormous leverage over global tech supply chains.

Control over the minerals that power technology has become a major form of soft power, pulling invisible strings in global markets and shaping alliances. That makes mining regulations in Greenland a geopolitical chess move.

Today “regulations from the government of Greenland are quite high,” the Geological Survey’s Poulsen explains. “They have really strict regulations,” she says, including both environmental and social considerations, like “local benefits such as taxes, local workforce, local companies, [and] education.”

Michael Waltz, Trump’s incoming national security advisor, appeared to confirm that gaining access to the country’s minerals was driving Trump’s interest. “This is about critical minerals; this is about natural resources,” he told Fox News.
“You Can’t Put a Name on Land”

Glaciers loomed through Trump Force One’s cockpit window as Greenland’s coast unspooled behind a bobblehead of the forty-seventh president, his plastic bouffant bobbing in the turbulence. Dropping through the sharp, thin air, the plane delivered Donald Trump Jr to the island’s capital of Nuuk in early January with his father’s message: we intend to take over.

The tour de force — which included bribing people to participate in photo shoots — failed to win over many Greenlanders, says Inuuteq Kriegel, a Nuuk resident. “We don’t want to be Americans. We don’t want to be Danish. We’re Greenlanders,” he said.

A week after Trump Jr’s trip, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) introduced the Make Greenland Great Again Act, instructing Congress to support Trump’s negotiations with Denmark to acquire Greenland immediately. (Ogles is currently the subject of an FBI probe around his campaign finance filings and last week announced an amendment that would allow Trump to run for a third term.)

“It might sound crazy, and one might ask, ‘Why would you want Greenland?’” Ogles said in a recent video. He was speaking with Kuno Fencker, a member of Greenland’s parliament representing the Siumut party, who had traveled to Washington, DC. “Your security interest is our security interest,” Ogles told Fencker. “Our ability to make best use of your minerals, your resources, and your riches — to benefit your people and ours — is in our best interest.”

Fencker, who says taxes and royalties from the island’s minerals and fossil fuels could pave the way for the island’s independence, responded, “We have other vast resources, like oil and gas, but that has been stopped by the current government. But my personal view is that we have to utilize those resources.”

Fencker’s US trip ignited local controversy. Typically Greenland’s international negotiations require coordination and approval from Denmark; imagine someone like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) single-handedly deciding to negotiate with the European Union without congressional approval. Fencker’s party said he was not authorized to discuss Greenland’s foreign affairs, while Fencker defended his travel as a private mission at his own expense.

The rogue nature of recent developments has been reinforced by bombastic press coverage. In Greenland, Kriegel says foreign reporters “often talk to the loud people — and often the same people — and they can generalize a whole population by speaking to only a few.” His own social networks are deeply uncomfortable with Trump’s attempts to purchase the country.

Trump and his tech donors’ eagerness to seize Greenland, existing culture and laws be damned, are “representative of a particular colonial and extractive worldview,” wrote Anne Merrild Hansen, professor of social science and arctic oil and gas studies at the University of Greenland. The approach treats land and resources as commodities to be claimed, regardless of the rights or interests of the people who live there.

All the unwelcome commotion, however, has succeeded in delivering one change: Kriegel says the country is now unified in wanting to find a path to independence from Denmark, even if there’s not yet agreement on how to do so.

“You can’t put a name on land,” he says. “Land belongs to the people. It’s a part of us, and we’re part of it.”


Lois Parshley is an award-winning investigative journalist. Her wide-ranging reporting has been published at the New Yorker, Harper’s, the New York Times, Businessweek, National Geographic, and more.