The Conversation
January 15, 2025
Greenland's flag flies in Igaliku settlement, Greenland, July 5, 2024.
Ritzau Scanpix/Ida Marie Odgaard via REUTERS/File Photo
At a news conference in early January 2025, President-elect Donald Trump rambled through a grab bag of grievances and proposals, including his disdain for wind power and low-flow showerheads and his thoughts on the possible acquisition of the Panama Canal, Canada and Greenland.
On the latter, he mused, “People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up, because we need it for national security.”
The negative commentary in prominent news outlets was swift. Such “vague threats” and “messianic promises” were “shocking … in their craziness,” a harbinger of a “chaotic and stream-of-consciousness presidency, a succession of opinion writers suggested.
Yet, with respect to Greenland, Trump’s proposal has a long history. Here, he is guilty less of territorial ambitions than of saying the quiet part out loud.
In 1823, President James Monroe established the principle that European powers were to defer to the United States on matters pertaining to the Western Hemisphere. While what came to be called the Monroe Doctrine and its corollaries were employed primarily to assert American interests and ambitions in Latin America, they clearly applied to northern neighbors as well.
After the German invasion of Denmark in April 1940, Secretary of State Cordell Hull made this point clear to his Danish counterpart, asserting that "Greenland is within the area embraced by the Monroe Doctrine.”U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull is interviewed on April 9, 1940, after word was received of the invasion of Denmark and Norway by German troops. Hulton Archive/Getty Images
The two countries signed a “Defense of Greenland” agreement in 1941 that allowed the U.S to “construct, maintain, and operate … landing fields, seaplane facilities, and radio and meteorological installations.” The U.S. pressed to retain its bases after the war, a decision that was formalized by treaty in 1951.
Read more: 4 reasons why the US might want to buy Greenland – if it were for sale, which it isn’t
For the U.S., which had a substantial military presence in Greenland by the early 1950s, the territory was crucial as an outpost for the Air Force and as a link in the so-called Distant Early Warning Line that monitored possible Soviet incursions from the north.
In early 1955, almost 70 years to the day before Trump’s recent speech, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed a more radical solution to preservation of American interests in the North Atlantic. In a memorandum for the secretary of defense, titled “Possible Acquisition of Greenland by the United States,” the military leaders reiterated the U.S. position: “Geographically, Greenland is part of the Western Hemisphere and has long been regarded so by the United States.”
“As to whether it would be to the military advantage of the United States to acquire title to Greenland,” the memorandum continued, “the Joint Chiefs of Staff believe it to be axiomatic that sovereignty provides the firmest basis of assuring that a territory and its resources will be available for military use when needed. United States sovereignty over Greenland would remove any doubt as to the unconditional availability of bases.”
A few days later, a shorter version landed on President Dwight Eisenhower’s desk, with the summary assessment that “it would be to our military advantage to acquire title to Greenland from a military viewpoint.”
Such musings, in 1955 or 2025, casually assume the universality of American interests and disregard the sovereignty of allies. By the same token, Trump’s proposal is evidently not just another of his frequently outlandish ambitions, when it has been a fixture of U.S. national security for over 70 years.
At a news conference in early January 2025, President-elect Donald Trump rambled through a grab bag of grievances and proposals, including his disdain for wind power and low-flow showerheads and his thoughts on the possible acquisition of the Panama Canal, Canada and Greenland.
On the latter, he mused, “People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to it, but if they do, they should give it up, because we need it for national security.”
The negative commentary in prominent news outlets was swift. Such “vague threats” and “messianic promises” were “shocking … in their craziness,” a harbinger of a “chaotic and stream-of-consciousness presidency, a succession of opinion writers suggested.
Yet, with respect to Greenland, Trump’s proposal has a long history. Here, he is guilty less of territorial ambitions than of saying the quiet part out loud.
In 1823, President James Monroe established the principle that European powers were to defer to the United States on matters pertaining to the Western Hemisphere. While what came to be called the Monroe Doctrine and its corollaries were employed primarily to assert American interests and ambitions in Latin America, they clearly applied to northern neighbors as well.
After the German invasion of Denmark in April 1940, Secretary of State Cordell Hull made this point clear to his Danish counterpart, asserting that "Greenland is within the area embraced by the Monroe Doctrine.”U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull is interviewed on April 9, 1940, after word was received of the invasion of Denmark and Norway by German troops. Hulton Archive/Getty Images
The two countries signed a “Defense of Greenland” agreement in 1941 that allowed the U.S to “construct, maintain, and operate … landing fields, seaplane facilities, and radio and meteorological installations.” The U.S. pressed to retain its bases after the war, a decision that was formalized by treaty in 1951.
Read more: 4 reasons why the US might want to buy Greenland – if it were for sale, which it isn’t
For the U.S., which had a substantial military presence in Greenland by the early 1950s, the territory was crucial as an outpost for the Air Force and as a link in the so-called Distant Early Warning Line that monitored possible Soviet incursions from the north.
In early 1955, almost 70 years to the day before Trump’s recent speech, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed a more radical solution to preservation of American interests in the North Atlantic. In a memorandum for the secretary of defense, titled “Possible Acquisition of Greenland by the United States,” the military leaders reiterated the U.S. position: “Geographically, Greenland is part of the Western Hemisphere and has long been regarded so by the United States.”
“As to whether it would be to the military advantage of the United States to acquire title to Greenland,” the memorandum continued, “the Joint Chiefs of Staff believe it to be axiomatic that sovereignty provides the firmest basis of assuring that a territory and its resources will be available for military use when needed. United States sovereignty over Greenland would remove any doubt as to the unconditional availability of bases.”
A few days later, a shorter version landed on President Dwight Eisenhower’s desk, with the summary assessment that “it would be to our military advantage to acquire title to Greenland from a military viewpoint.”
Such musings, in 1955 or 2025, casually assume the universality of American interests and disregard the sovereignty of allies. By the same token, Trump’s proposal is evidently not just another of his frequently outlandish ambitions, when it has been a fixture of U.S. national security for over 70 years.
'Utter nonsense': Expert blows up Trump world's reason for acquiring Greenland
Brad Reed
January 15, 2025
Brad Reed
January 15, 2025
RAW STORY
President Donald Trump at his plane (Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)
President-elect Donald Trump has long mused about bringing Greenland into the United States and recently he and his allies have claimed that America needs the territory due to its rich mineral deposits.
However, Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas examined the potential for significant deposits of precious minerals in Greenland and concluded that this justification for seizing the territory is "utter nonsense."
Among other things, Blas focused on the fact that Greenland's frigid climate makes whatever minerals can be extracted from the territory much more expensive than minerals extracted from countries with warmer climates.
"A 2023 Danish geological survey identified at least 50 locations with mineral potential," he writes. "Of them, more than half are north of the Arctic Circle, making their exploitation very hard and expensive, if not impossible. A handful, however, are in the ice-free southern tip of Greenland, opening the door to development. But most of them are small. Of the potentially large, perhaps the most interesting one is the Tanbreez rare earths deposit.Yet the geological report warns that Greenland has very little chance of developing its commodity deposits due to high production costs."
Blas then knocks down claims that taking over Greenland could help the United States at the very least help America break China's current stranglehold on the rare earths market.
"Are the Greenlandic reserves of rare earths large? Not as far as we know," he argues. "According to the US Geological Survey, considered an authority in the field, the island contains 1.5 million tons. That puts Greenland in the world’s top 10, but well behind the US itself, as well as China, Brazil, Vietnam, India and Australia. Very likely, mining for rare earths in all of those countries would be easier and cheaper than in Greenland."
In fact, Blas identifies nations including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chile, Peru, Brazil, and Mongolia as nations with the potential for real mineral extraction in a way that Greenland can never reach.
"Sadly, none of them is for sale," he concludes. "But neither is Greenland."
President Donald Trump at his plane (Photo: Gage Skidmore/Flickr)
President-elect Donald Trump has long mused about bringing Greenland into the United States and recently he and his allies have claimed that America needs the territory due to its rich mineral deposits.
However, Bloomberg columnist Javier Blas examined the potential for significant deposits of precious minerals in Greenland and concluded that this justification for seizing the territory is "utter nonsense."
Among other things, Blas focused on the fact that Greenland's frigid climate makes whatever minerals can be extracted from the territory much more expensive than minerals extracted from countries with warmer climates.
"A 2023 Danish geological survey identified at least 50 locations with mineral potential," he writes. "Of them, more than half are north of the Arctic Circle, making their exploitation very hard and expensive, if not impossible. A handful, however, are in the ice-free southern tip of Greenland, opening the door to development. But most of them are small. Of the potentially large, perhaps the most interesting one is the Tanbreez rare earths deposit.Yet the geological report warns that Greenland has very little chance of developing its commodity deposits due to high production costs."
Blas then knocks down claims that taking over Greenland could help the United States at the very least help America break China's current stranglehold on the rare earths market.
"Are the Greenlandic reserves of rare earths large? Not as far as we know," he argues. "According to the US Geological Survey, considered an authority in the field, the island contains 1.5 million tons. That puts Greenland in the world’s top 10, but well behind the US itself, as well as China, Brazil, Vietnam, India and Australia. Very likely, mining for rare earths in all of those countries would be easier and cheaper than in Greenland."
In fact, Blas identifies nations including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Chile, Peru, Brazil, and Mongolia as nations with the potential for real mineral extraction in a way that Greenland can never reach.
"Sadly, none of them is for sale," he concludes. "But neither is Greenland."
No comments:
Post a Comment