President-elect Donald Trump is not planning a military invasion of Greenland, nor should he. However, he does actually make sense when he suggests that the United States should try to acquire Greenland from Denmark peacefully. Trump and Congress should look closely into how much Greenland would be worth to this country and examine whether it would be worthwhile to offer to buy it from Denmark for an appropriate price.
U.S. purchases of territory have a long and beneficial history. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 doubled the nation’s territory in one fell swoop. The 1819 Florida Purchase, the 1848 Mexican Cession, the 1853 Gadsden Purchase, and the 1867 Alaska Purchase all proved to be wise moves for the U.S. while bringing beneficent government to those lands. And the U.S. even has a history of buying from Denmark itself, in the $25 million purchase of what would become the Virgin Islands in 1917.
As for Greenland, it would be of more use to the U.S. than it is to tiny Denmark. Its land mass of 836,000 square miles, bigger than Alaska and California combined, dwarfs Denmark’s own, making it almost unmanageable for the Danes long term. And its strategic military benefits to Denmark are virtually nil because Denmark will not be a major player in “great power” competition regardless. For the U.S., though, and for world peace and freedom, a purchase of Greenland could be a great boon. Indeed, twice before, in 1867 and 1946, U.S. officials seriously considered buying the huge island.
The U.S. already operates a long-standing military facility there, the Pituffik Space Base (formerly known as the Thule Air Base), which conducts important satellite operations and keeps tabs on any Russian missile launch, which assuredly would cross over the Arctic rather than travel a longer course over Western Europe and the broad Atlantic Ocean. That base is in the northwest of the island, but the southern part of Greenland, which the U.S. right now does not control, oversees the Greenland-Iceland-U.K. gap, which is a maritime route of critical strategic-military importance.
Moreover, as both Russia and China evince interest in claiming large parts of, or the entirety of, the Arctic Ocean as their own, with interest in snatching its oil and minerals, the U.S. would be well advised to bracket the ocean with Greenland on one side to go with Alaska on the other. The Arctic contains an estimated 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of its undiscovered natural gas, along with diamonds, iron ore, nickel, copper, and zinc. And Greenland itself is full of those riches, ones Denmark may not have the wherewithal to develop but the U.S. does, and it also boasts tremendously productive fisheries.
The U.S. in turn has more resources than Denmark to provide superb environmental protections for the large interior of Greenland and to do worthwhile environmental research there.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
If the U.S. did purchase the huge island, the island’s 56,000 residents could enjoy territorial status in much the same way as the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Puerto Rico — or, perhaps, the island could be added to the state of Maine, thus affording its residents full representation in Congress.
Either way, a U.S. absorption of Greenland could make great sense. Denmark may not want to let it go, but perhaps the U.S. could offer a price worth considering.
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
