Should The United States Purchase Greenland? – OpEd |
America became the most powerful nation in history partly due to its size. The early United States was defined by purchases (or sheer seizures) of vast land. This is less common today given that most nation-states are considered sovereign and unwilling to negotiate boundaries. Thus, President Donald Trump’s idea of purchasing Greenland has been widely mocked, if for no other reason than that it feels novel in modern times. However, I like the thinking behind his idea and want to assess its pros and cons.
Contrary to popular theories—including those peddled by Trump—the U.S has never owned Greenland. It has been under Danish sovereignty since the early 18th century and remains an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark today.
But the U.S. has long had strategic interests there. After World War II it offered Denmark $100 million in gold to buy Greenland—which Denmark declined. The U.S. nevertheless gained substantial military access during the Cold War, most notably through Pituffik Space Base, which remains strategically vital for missile defense and Arctic surveillance.
So while the U.S. never owned Greenland, the idea of acquiring it isn’t new, nor outside the historical norm of American territorial expansion.
The strongest arguments for acquisition: Greenland is valuable, underutilized, and strategically positioned.
It is rich in natural resources, including rare earth elements, uranium, iron ore, zinc, and vast oil and gas reserves. As global supply chains become more fragile—and as China increasingly dominates rare earth production—the value of a resource-rich Arctic territory controlled by the U.S. is obvious.
Equally important is geography.........