Trump's Greenland plan: What's behind the posturing?

Editor's note: Freddie Reidy, a special commentator for CGTN, is a freelance writer based in London, specialized in international politics. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In the early days of U.S. President Donald Trump's second term, there has been much speculation over what is "continuity" from his first term and what is the fruit of what some have claimed to be – a more disciplined second act.

Whereas there is a direct line between the two administrations concerning Greenland, an Atlantic neighbor that recognizes itself an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark, Donald Trump has in recent weeks repeatedly floated a 2019 claim that Greenland should indeed become part of the United States. Taking to his own social media platform "Truth Social," the then president-elect wrote last December that "For purposes of national security and freedom throughout the world, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity." However, this idea of "becoming part of the U.S." has been overwhelmingly rejected by 85 percent of Greenlanders, according to the latest polling.

In fact, the issue over Greenland's sovereignty isn't new, but rather part of the broader geopolitical ambitions of the U.S. in the Arctic throughout the 20th century, including the sale of Alaska by Russia to the United States in 1867. Efforts were made repeatedly over the following years to acquire Greenland before the then-U.S. President Woodrow Wilson called time on the notion in 1917 favoring the purchase of what became the Virgin Islands of the U.S. from Denmark.

Intriguingly, the British government insisted at the time that should Denmark sell Greenland in the future, the United Kingdom would get the first right of refusal, which was due to the proximity of Greenland to Canada, then a colonial dominion. This policy stands to this day.

The country's strategic importance has led to accommodation in the past such as the installation of U.S. bases on Greenland during the World War II and the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement in the early stages of the Cold War when the Pituffik Space Base (formerly known as the Thule Air Base) was expanded. The outpost today serves as an important monitoring base for space activity as well as an early warning missile defense post.

As with the exploits during the 20th century, access to Greenland and the wider Arctic owes much to the borders between regional powers as it does to the landmass of Greenland itself, despite its bounty of rare earth metals, which are vital to the technologies of the future, as well as oil and gas reserves.

Indeed, Trump's wider ambition is the consolidation of the U.S. influence over the major shipping arteries of the world, the hard power behind the U.S. heft over economic and trade agreements.

Just as the Ever Given grounding at the Suez Canal in 2021 highlighted the outsized economic impact of trade route disruption, the emergence of competing world powers means that in the eyes of the Trump administration, the U.S. must assert its dominance.

Driven by global temperature rises, Arctic trade routes such as the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route have become more viable with the potential of reducing shipping times and increasing access. Control of Greenland would greatly increase U.S. influence in the region as the waterways around Greenland's coastline would fall within American oversight.

The Greenland policy therefore mirrors Trump's other ambition to the south, the Panama Canal. The canal had been handed over to Panama by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 1977 with full control signed over in 1999.

While Donald Trump is prone to challenging established orthodoxy, especially in the realm of foreign affairs, he outlined his intention by refusing to rule out the use of military force to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland at a recent press briefing.

While Donald Trump has suggested that Canada "could become a state" of the U.S., his stance on Greenland and Panama carries a far greater likelihood. While attempts at renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and renaming Denali to Mount McKinley may raise a few eyebrows, it speaks to a more muscular assertion of "America First."

A full-blown military intervention or economic war over Greenland seems unlikely, placing the United States at odds with Denmark, an important NATO partner, and the European Union as a whole, owing to Greenland's status within the bloc.

It is, however, typical of Trump to use strong-arm tactics at the beginning before settling on more favorable terms. The recent repatriation of Colombian migrants served as one of the latest examples where Colombia had initially opposed the process on grounds of it being a military operation rather than civil one. Eventually, Bogotá was forced to acquiesce under the threat of economic sanctions.

Denmark has responded to the threat though, with a $2.05 billion investment in Arctic security announced on January 27, following a previous announcement of $1.5 billion on Greenland's security made in December. These commitments underscore a robust line from the EU's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas that the EU is "not negotiating" on Greenland.

However, for Trump who in his first term was so committed to urging NATO partners to double their military funding target, perhaps this is precisely the outcome he was after – netting a $4 billion saving in the process.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)