Greenland doesn’t want to be American

When the United States first began to express interest in Greenland, any proposal to “buy” the land was quickly dismissed by Denmark and its Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen as absurd. Yet, this Monday a House Republican introduced legislation to annex Greenland. The legislation is largely a symbolic show of support by Republicans for Trump’s foreign policy, but nonetheless shows how the question of Greenland has begun to worm into both domestic and international politics. Absurdity is now becoming reality, and Denmark and Europe must reckon with the fact that the President of the United States is insistent on claiming this autonomous territory “one way, or another.”

Greenland is positioned between North America, Russia and Europe, and as global warming continues to destroy icy environments and habitats, it simultaneously opens up more northern shipping routes. The potential of new trade avenues paired with Greenland’s vast natural resources makes it an extremely economically viable land mass. In addition to its economic edge, it is militarily advantageous. 

President Trump told reporters on Jan. 4 the U.S. needs Greenland from the standpoint of national security, emphasizing how it is “covered” with Russian and Chinese ships. The U.S. has its most northern military base in Greenland, and has not left the Pituffik Space Base since it was established in World War II.

News in recent weeks has centered on Greenland from several angles — national security for America, potential economic advantages for all interested parties and emphasis on the dangers of the territory slipping into another country’s grasp. But, so little has been said on what Greenlanders want. It is clear what the President, and most of his Administration, wants with language surrounding the “threat of Russia” and the incapability of other countries' defense mechanisms without intervention being reminiscent of Cold War discourse. The President has shown disregard for NATO and has been met with European countries asserting their support for their continental allies. French President Emmanuel Macron warned of “cascading consequences” should the U.S. take Greenland, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer bluntly stated that only Greenland and Denmark should decide its future. Similar statements have been made from several other European countries. The size and wealth of the United States often means that statements from smaller countries remain actionless words. But, the unification of Europe on this matter is something that everyone should be cautious about, lest the philosophy of “an enemy of my enemy is a friend” begins to cause the alignment (however tense, and maybe only on a single issue) of U.S. allies with U.S. adversaries. 

In the realm of geopolitical complexities, the wants of Greenland are being echoed by European countries, but not being constituted in their own right. Nielsen has said, “We choose Denmark.” In a perfect world, where sovereignty is always respected, that statement should be the end of this matter. The leader of a nation, or territory, should be able to decide what is in the best interest of their nation. If choice is not respected, then freedom is limited to the most powerful. 

Greenland is not against co-operation with the U.S., it is against being ruled by it. There are several ways that the U.S. could work with them if national security is truly the primary reason for their insistence on a heightened presence in the region. However, to take over a country by force without the explicit consent of its people would be modern-day colonialism. Long ago, the people of the United States decided to rebel against being ruled by a repressive force that refused to listen to the plea of the people. It would be incredulous to see the very concept of consent which founded the systems of government in America, be pushed aside in an attempt to acquire a territory that does not wish to become the 51st state.