Given the wording of a 1951 treaty that allowed the U.S. almost unfettered access to Greenland for defense purposes, and that was updated in 2004 to give Greenland a nominal say in matters, there never was any question about America using the island for military purposes.
Read more 36 years, 1 mission: A Utah general’s journey from howitzer crewman to brigade commander
As a Danish researcher told The New York Times earlier this year, it was just a matter of asking nicely.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration went through a lot of dramatics before arriving at that point. The president threatened to annex the island, purchase it or take it by force. He created a significant foreign-policy crisis in Denmark, which controls the island as a semiautonomous territory. His threats needlessly put the 77-year-old North Atlantic Treaty Organization at risk at a time when Russia is searching for military advantages in its war against Ukraine. Allies were angry. Greenland’s approximately 55,600 permanent residents were on edge.
A tentative deal
President Donald Trump last week announced a tentative deal with Denmark and Greenland. Initial reports indicate it is a good one. We wish it had been quietly negotiated with the principal players from the start.
While details of the agreement have yet to be released, officials said it would build on that 1951 agreement, giving the U.S. broad freedom to establish military bases. The administration has noted the agreement would cement its terms even in the event Greenland were to separate from Denmark some day and become its own independent nation.
The United States will be able to establish more military bases, but all non-NATO nations would be prohibited from doing so.
The agreement seems to have at least mollified the anger that existed among Greenland’s residents when the U.S. was breathing threats of a takeover. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that business leaders in both Greenland and the U.S. look forward to investments that are sorely needed on the island.
A changing climate
Greenland is rich in natural resources, much of which lay hidden under ice and snow. Some, such as University of Chicago political science professor Michael Albertus, say that could change soon. Writing in Foreign Affairs last March, he said global climate change may soon make those resources more obtainable. It also might make the island more inhabitable.
“As major powers try to position themselves for success in a warming world, many will rush to secure access to vital territory and resources — ushering in an era in which blatant land grabs are a recurrent theme,” he wrote.
Read more What Republicans want — and don’t want — to see from Trump’s meeting with Chinese president
Truman’s offer
Whether that happens remains to be seen. However, Greenland’s geographical advantages for military purposes are beyond dispute. In 1946, only a year after the end of World War II, President Harry Truman secretly offered Denmark $100 million in gold in exchange for purchasing Greenland. The Associated Press reported on this in 1991 after it was brought to light by a newspaper in Copenhagen.
An alternative plan asked Denmark to trade oil-rich land in Alaska’s Point Barrow district for parts of Greenland that could be used for military bases.
The plan was presented to the Danish prime minister, who expressed shock at the proposals but promised to study them. The Associated Press said there is no evidence to suggest the proposals were ever discussed again.
In any event, the 1951 agreement eventually allowed the U.S. to build military bases.
Currently, the United States operates only one such base, the Pituffik Space Base in the northwest part of the island. Among other things, the base allows sophisticated tracking of any missiles launched by Russia or China.
If all parties sign the agreement, more bases are likely to follow. Eventually, dollars would flow to Greenland in exchange for energy extraction. The United States and Greenland would enjoy an extra measure of security.
These all are good things that could have been accomplished without collateral damage to important international relationships.
Read more ‘Avengers: Endgame’ is headed back to theaters — with some brand-new scenes