WASHINGTON (TNND) — President Donald Trump’s musings about the U.S. acquiring Greenland such as, “Make Greenland great again” haven’t been taken seriously by much of Washington, it seems, until Wednesday, when the Republican-led Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing with national security and arctic science experts to talk logistics.
The primary argument for acquiring the Danish territory centers on access to Greenland’s rare earth minerals. China currently holds what is essentially global monopoly on these minerals, and Greenland possesses 39 of the 50 minerals the U.S. considers critical to national security.
“Were Greenland to agree to this acquisition, the Greenlanders would get the invaluable asset of American citizenship, but also would benefit from billions of dollars of additional investment in Greenland to develop those rare earth minerals, the vast resources they have that are not currently being developed,” Committee Chairman Ted Cruz said.
However, a local poll of Greenlanders conducted in late January revealed 85% opposed becoming part of the U.S.
Instead, Greenland has been focused on gaining independence from Denmark.
“We don’t want to be Danes. We don’t want to be Americans. We want to be Greenlanders,” Greenlandic Prime Minister Múte Egede said last month.
Sen. Andy Kim, D-N.J., shared similar sentiments.
“I’ll be honest with you, the Greenlanders I talked to were insulted that we were talking in this way about their own land as if they’re not even there,” Kim said during the hearing. “That it feels like we’re saying they are an object that we can just take because we are the richest, most powerful country in the world.”
Denmark is equally opposed to the U.S. acquiring its territory. Its prime minister has been meeting with other European leaders in recent weeks to garner support for its territorial sovereignty.
A concern expressed by experts on the panel is China and Russia taking advantage of a power vacuum that could arise if Greenland does become independent from Denmark.
“To me, the number one objective of the United States in Greenland has to be the same that it’s been since the 1860s, which is to prevent, deny access, control to an adversary power who would use that space to threaten our homeland and our hemisphere,” said Alexander Gray, an alumni of the first Trump administration, now a senior fellow in national security affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council. “To me, the best way to do that, ideally, would be as an insular area of the United States.”
Gray said a second choice would be establishing a Compact of Free Association with Greenland that would give the U.S. greater military access and the legal right to deny foreign adversaries access to Greenland.
“If we are trying to solidify our relationship with them, especially in some post-independence position, we are burning those bridges, we are sowing a sense of distrust right now that I think will make it even harder for us to be able to achieve that later,” Kim said.
In addition to the will of Greenlanders and Danes, another obstacle to the U.S. adding Greenland to its territorial portfolio is cost, especially at a time with the new administration has touted efforts to slash government spending.
“That’s not gonna come for free. So, what’s that gonna cost?” Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., asked.
“You know, it is on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars,” Gray said.
Wednesday’s hearing proved there is bipartisan consensus that it’s in the nation’s strategic interest to be more engaged with Greenland. Republicans have started to acknowledge publicly the U.S. does not need to own Greenland to achieve this.
Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, both Republicans from Alaska, opposed the idea of acquiring Greenland, arguing their home state already provides the U.S. with the arctic benefits associated with Greenland.
“As legislators representing Greenland in Denmark and the United States, we see a better path forward,” Murkowski said in a recent joint statement with Aaja Chemnitz, the member of Danish Parliament representing Greenland for Inuit Ataqatigiit. “The United States, like Denmark, should recognize that the future will be defined by partnership, not ownership. To ensure our alliance reaches its full potential, Americans must view Greenland as an ally, not an asset. Open for business, but not for sale.”