Donald Trump's Greenlandic Mirage

Donald Trump's Greenlandic Mirage.
by
Gorm Winther
Professor (emeritus), Ph.D.[1]
Donald Trump demands that Denmark must relinquish its sovereignty over Greenland for security policy reasons. This claim is surprising because the U.S. already has free access to and movement between the defense areas throughout Greenland, including the territorial waters, on land, at sea, and in the air. The Self-Government Act for Greenland includes provisions about Greenland's foreign policy, which remains largely under Danish control. Defense and security matters are especially excluded from the self-government law, limiting Greenland's autonomy and thus reflecting Denmark's constrained role due to U.S. geopolitical interests.
In reality, powerful U.S. policymakers backed by the military-industrial complex and transnational corporations repress countries and regions like Greenland that seek a self-reliant economic development. This approach violates international law regarding self-determination. The essence of U.S. policy in the Arctic revolves around energy and food security rather than an imaginary threat to the ideals of freedom and democracy. The true concern is control over Arctic resources, primarily from Russia and Greenland, which present potential capital export opportunities for transnational corporations.
Romantic notions among the Inuit people in Greenland often foster the illusion that joining the U.S. leads to Greenland's independence. In reality, it is a replacement of one colonial authority with another, which will result in a lower standard of living for Greenland Inuits. According to the self-government act, the block grant from the Danish state to Greenland ceases if the value added to Greenland's production replaces the grant. When the grant is zero, a renegotiation between the Greenlandic and Danish governments will determine whether Greenland wishes independence. Given the overarching dominance of the United States, particularly with the Monroe Doctrine in mind, even declaring independence for Greenland will not result in autonomy due to U.S. hegemony.
Already on December 23 last year, in connection with the appointment of the future American ambassador to Denmark, Donald Trump talked about the United States taking sovereignty over Greenland. At the press conference in Mar-a-Lago, Florida, on January 7 this year, shortly after his son Donald Trump Jr. and other representatives landed in Greenland, Trump sharpened the rhetoric, which years ago was expressed through the suggestion that Denmark should "sell Greenland".
The justification for Trump's attack on alleged Danish sovereignty was accompanied by the usual tirades that originate in the USA's "John Wayne complex". The bravado about the security of the United States and the United States as the guarantor of democracy and freedom around the world rings hollow. In other words, corrupt policymakers in the United States, mainly financed by the military-industrial complex and transnational corporations, continue the imperialist campaign of the United States and NATO against countries and regions like Greenland seeking self-reliant economic development. It is from the imperialist centers that the humbug about democracy and freedom emanates, which is surprising.
There is nothing new with the U.S. wanting to bring Greenland under American control. Donald Trump's statements do not provide much insight into the facts about defense policy and security policy in Greenland. He is basically demanding something the U.S. already has (!). Concerning defense policy and security policy, the United States gained control over Greenland in 1941 and has had that control ever since. As part of the Danish Realm, Greenland possesses civil power, while Denmark increasingly cedes this sovereignty to Greenland in connection with the process of self-government. Since World War II, the United States has held military control of Greenland geopolitically due to the Monroe Doctrine, the Havana Act, and the 1941 Defense Agreement for Greenland established during the Second World War by the Danish ambassador to the US, Henrik Kaufman, and the Roosevelt administration. This defense agreement already meant that the United States could establish airports and ports as military bases in Greenland. After World War II, the Danish government tried to regain control of Greenland's defenses, which the United States purely rejected.
The Defence Agreement for Greenland of 1951 between Denmark and the United States, which is still in force, was thus formulated so that the U.S. has "free access to and movement between the defense areas throughout Greenland, including the territorial waters, on land, at sea, and in the air".
Hence, the Danish government only had a say in the defence of Greenland. Shortly after the defense agreement was implemented, the U.S. side demonstrated its hegemony. More than 100 ships departed from the United States in relation to the secret "Operation Blue Jay" aimed at establishing Thule Air Base. In addition to the Thule base, the United States took over the Kangerlussuaq base (The Sonderstrom Airbase), which later was closed in 1992. However, as early as 1991, the United States made possible future operations for Greenland authorities conditional on an agreement between Denmark, Greenland, and the United States regarding the Americans' right to use Kangerlussuaq Airport for continued military activities.
Therefore, Donald Trump's threats are surprising. If Denmark does not comply, economic sanctions will be initiated, or, even worse, a military intervention will be implemented. Frightened Danish politicians reacted by hiding behind the Government of Greenland's rejection of whether Greenland should be for sale or should be incorporated as an American colony. The fact that Danish politicians are America's lapdog is a result of the failed NATO-dominated foreign and defense policies of successive Danish governments and Denmark's obedient adherence to everything that comes from "Uncle Sam."
The Self-Government Act for Greenland contains a passage concerning Greenland's foreign policy conditions. The Danish government and the "Folketinget" (the Danish Parliament) have both constitutional responsibilities and powers in foreign policy. Reading the law, it is obvious that Danish politicians cannot hide behind Greenlandic politicians. The Danish government's responsibility is clear when you read that the self-government law does not apply to defense and security policy!! In practice, this, of course, means that even Denmark plays a limited role because of the U.S. geopolitical interests and dominance.
The Self-government Act provides for a scheme of deputized power whereby the Government of Greenland can negotiate and enter into international law agreements concerning Greenlandic affairs with foreign states and international organizations on behalf of the Danish Kingdom. Still, when the Danish government, like frightened lapdogs, runs away from a formal responsibility, it is theater. The political game serves the deception of Greenlandic politicians being included in the decisions even though the self-government law doesn't give them this opportunity. In reality, it is mainly the U.S. and additionally Danish colonialism that controls the defense and security policy in Greenland!
Can you buy countries or regions?
When Denmark sold the West Indies Islands (The Virgin Islands) to the United States in 1917 for $25 million at the current prices of that time, there was no desire from the American side to "buy Greenland." What is forgotten in relation to today's fantasies, however, is that a footnote in the agreement about the sale stated that Denmark undertook never to sell Greenland to any other European country. Additionally, Denmark had a passage included in the contract declaring that the United States recognized Danish sovereignty over all of Greenland.
According to the U.S. National Archives, which was mentioned in the New York Times in the 1990s, the Truman administration in 1946 asked the Danish government if Greenland was for sale, as the former West Indies were. U.S. Secretary of State James Byrne later said that it came as a shock to the then-Danish Secretary of State Gustav Rasmussen that such an offer could be considered at all. Byrnes did not only propose a sale; other models were also considered, as he offered a regular exchange of land. For the military lands in Greenland, Denmark could instead get North Slope Barrow in Alaska, where oil production was established later in the 70s in connection with the Prud Hoe Bay oilfield, which today accounts for a large part of the USA's energy supply. This was not the case in 1946 when Denmark did not express a particular interest in such a barter.
In other words, Trump's attempt to "buy Greenland" has historical precedents, and in the age of neo-colonialism, the offer may not be as unrealistic as many think. However, the fact that Denmark can sell off land in this way is, as in the case of the United States, not in accordance with the principles of people's self-determination in international law.
Thule Airbase as a bargaining chip
What could be opportune in 2025 is that Denmark can use the tag that says "Thule Airbase" in renegotiations regarding the game about Greenland. Instead of "the lapdog approach" seeking consensus and subordinating Denmark to American interests, the question is whether it is time for Denmark to pursue a conflict and mark an independent policy in relation to Trump's attempted violation of international law regarding self-determination!
According to the Danish National newspaper "Berlingske Tidende", a report in 2023 revealed that billions of dollars are earmarked for Thule Airbase and other military expenses in Greenland. A statement from the U.S. Air Force said that the base has an aging infrastructure that the U.S. is interested in upgrading. Neither the Greenlandic government nor the Danish Parliament was informed about the upgrades the United States would implement. Pipaluk Lynge Rasmussen, from the governing party of Greenland Inuit Ataqatigiit and chairwoman of the self-government's foreign and security policy committee, was not informed about this. The arrogance of the United States did not involve the necessity to inform Danish and Greenlandic decision-makers about operations of this kind on Greenlandic and Danish territory. This was a direct violation of the agreements between the United States, Greenland, and Denmark, which state that the United States must inform the Danish and Greenlandic governments of any significant change to the United States military operations in Greenland.
A diplomatic crisis and a conflict within NATO could be sought if Danish politicians otherwise had the heart and courage to stand firm against the United States. The fact that Trump made his threats at the press conference on January 7 could appropriately lead to the Thule base being renegotiated and that the Americans should pay the price for Greenlandic and Danish losses due to any assault on Greenland and Denmark. The United States does not pay rent for the use of the base, which has so far been favorable for Denmark, which hitherto, in relation to financial contributions, was allowed to have a "NATO discount" on those. When the Danish government's goodwill to increase the financing of NATO's aggression is not matched by the United States paying more base rents to Greenland, it is again a sign of the Danish subservience to everything that comes from the United States.
A military intervention against another NATO country will inevitably jeopardize NATO's coherence and cooperation. Furthermore, corresponding economic taxes on both American and Danish imports can hardly be in the interests of exporters and importers in both countries. Trump's militaristic and protectionist mirage is not well thought out, but if it is pursued further, it can lead to a crisis in NATO, which can only be welcomed by NATO critics!
American imperialism
If we delve below the empirical surface, as promoted by the decision-makers everyday consciousness and the media's obfuscation of the actual occurrences, a rather different picture emerges of what American foreign policy in the Arctic is all about. This is analyzed in detail in our recent book, Human Security Through the New Traditional Economy in the Arctic.
Russia's justified control over large parts of the continental shelf of the Arctic regions naturally implies that Russia's sovereignty and unlimited control must be respected within the continental shelf, which extends 200 nautical miles or 370 km out from the Arctic coast in Russia. Russia's Arctic territory extends 24,140 kilometers of coastline along the Arctic Ocean and waters above the Arctic Circle from the Barents Sea in the west to the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk in the far east. Of the six countries bordering the Arctic Ocean, Canada, Denmark (Greenland), Iceland, Norway, Russia, and the U.S., Russia has the longest Arctic coastline. Access to the resources of the Russian part of the Arctic is of vital strategic and economic interest to Russia.
According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the six Arctic nations have the first right to extract living and dead resources within this limit. This excludes other nation-states from having access to exploit these resources unless other agreements are determined. Outside the continental shelf, the Arctic Ocean is an international sea navigated by all nations. The fact that traffic has increased significantly in recent years due to climate change and the melting of the Arctic Ocean is not, as Trump claims, solely because of the Sino-Russian alliance. The increased traffic is as much due to the maritime activities of the United States and NATO. Furthermore, the Arctic Ocean and the Northwest and Northeast Passages open the door to rivalry involving the control of regular logistics, as well as the possibility of increasing the search for, harvesting, and extraction of lucrative resources. It is worth noting in this context that U.S. imperialism's need for unfettered access to the territorial waters of other countries conveniently implies that the U.S. did not sign the UNCLOS agreement, while 150 nations under the auspices of the U.N. ratified it.
With climate change and the melting of the ice in the Arctic Ocean, the coming years will promote the exploitation of this last global occurrence of living and dead resources. Instead of the hurrah-talk about freedom and democracy, it is the hunt for and access to resources that is the real motivation for the rivalry between the great Arctic powers. Behind this lurks the question of energy security, which is important for the continued accumulation of capital by the imperialist centers. The considerable reservoirs of raw materials in the Russian economy through the extraction of oil, gas, and other raw materials and the advanced technical inputs could, if one can gain control of Russia, increase capital accumulation in the imperialist centers and counteract a falling rate of profit. Trump's sharpened rhetoric articulated as a demand to take over Greenland despite the fact that the U.S. already, in terms of security and defense, has control and access to Greenland, veils another agenda of U.S. imperialism than the defense of Greenland. Future access to the living and dead resources in Greenland is the same as in the Russian case. U.S. transnational corporations want to appropriate and exploit these resources, stealing them from Greenland and initiating a capital export.
Conflicts and preparations for warfare in the Arctic have their roots in the containment strategy that was previously directed against the Soviet Union (USSR) and which today continues as an attempt to crush the Russian Federation in an imperialist and hegemonic attempt to balkanize Russia and gain access to its vast resources and its cheap, highly skilled labor. This strategy was originally formulated by George F. Kennan in 1947 in the journal "Foreign Affairs" as part of the Truman administration's foreign policy. Kennan formulated a strategy to contain and regionalize the Soviet Union during the First Cold War. The aim then, as today, was to "promote tendencies which must ultimately find their outlet in either the dissolution or the gradual meltdown of Soviet power."
The U.S. government's Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (2023) has formulated the same strategy to divide Russia into independent small states as in the former Yugoslavia after 1990. The Helsinki Commission, under this commission, does not explicitly use the term "balkanization." Instead, the plan argues for dividing Russia into at least ten states. The commission, whose knowledge of imperialism and colonialism may lie in a very small place, justifies the strategy of the fallacious phrasing of "Decolonization of Russia as a Moral and Strategic Imperative."
The imperialist strategy of the United States is part of the rivalry between global powers to improve its energy and food security. Encircling Russia by expanding NATO eastwards all the way up to Russia's borders, establishing military bases and missile systems targeting Russia, and deploying pro-Western regimes in former Soviet republics on Russia's southern flank explain the U.S. policy in the Arctic. Mikhail Gorbachev formulated the strategy of the Arctic as a peace zone. Instead, the United States seeks to militarize the Arctic in order to achieve full control of land and waters. If the U.S. succeeds in doing so, this, as a worst-case scenario, will definitively complete the containment strategy, leading to Russia being under the control of imperialism. The long-term Kennan strategy has never left Washington's mindset. Therefore, conflicts in the Arctic cannot be seen as something isolated from the global conflicts and the Ukrainian proxy war between Russia and NATO.
Despite Donald Trump's fantasies about bringing peace to Ukraine and stopping the war overnight, his Mar-a-Lago press conference does not in any way demonstrate a break with the U.S.'s imperialist foreign policy. Trump's desire continues to be about the appropriation of the resources of other states by transnational corporations aiming at unbridled capital exports. In the Greenland case, the expected occurrence of dead resources in connection with mining and oil and gas production would lead to exploitation due to access to cheap resources and labor, which would give Greenland very little in return. Mining in Greenland has hitherto paid very little off to Greenland in terms of income taxes, royalties, and corporate taxes. In addition, access to untouched living resources will increase fishing in the new fishing grounds, as the return of cod and other species from warmer waters will open the way for increased capital accumulation in fisheries and fishing industries. In Alaska, Arctic Canada, and Russia, production is already underway around the dead resources, and explorations are underway to find new deposits.
Violation of international law
Trump's blunt statements are a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was adopted in 1966. Article 1 of the Convention states that all peoples have the right to self-determination, which gives them the right to freely and without outside interference to "determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development." In addition, all peoples can freely utilize and control their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising from the principle of international economic cooperation of mutual benefit and international law. Under no circumstances should people be deprived of their means of life. All Parties to the Convention undertake to accept and take the necessary steps to adopt laws or other measures required to implement the rights recognized in the Convention.
The double standards of the Arctic imperialist Nations' neocolonialism are also prevalent in the Arctic regions. Supposedly, self-government models have been implemented in Arctic regions. It is often said that Arctic indigenous peoples all have some form of self-government. We still need more comparative knowledge about parallels and differences between these models. Nonetheless, the organizational and economic dependence on the colonial powers remains a barrier to achieving complete independence based on the genuine self-determination of the Arctic peoples. Tensions related to traditional warfare in the Arctic are bringing back colonial dominance due to military build-up, war preparation, and increased control over the resources that, according to the ICCPR self-determination covenant, belong to the indigenous Arctic peoples.
The Arctic security policy based on the warfare strategies of the United States, Canada, Denmark, and Norway covers, beneath the empirical apparent surface, colonial hierarchies and power relations, reinforcing an approach that unilaterally sets up colonialist security policies as the primary conceptualization. The security policy of the Arctic imperialist centers implies that the consequences of ranking the centers' security needs are higher than the indigenous peoples' perception of security. This supersedes Indigenous endeavors to guard and expand self-determination. Seeing the security concept through the eyes of the Aborigines means that security becomes something different than the imperialist concept of exploitation, hegemony, conflict seeking, and warfare. Except for tribal wars between Indians and Inuit and the conflicts with Norsemen hundreds of years ago, Arctic peoples do not have traditions of war and aggression. Other security concepts such as human security, food security, environmental and energy security, human development, empowerment in the form of popular participation, political autonomy, economic self-management, and the preservation of socio-cultural values through the new traditional economy are just as important.
Militarism endangers the self-determination of Arctic peoples. In all its ugliness, Trump's speech is an example of the white man's burden not only through American imperialism but also through the continued Danish colonialism.
A Greenland with the same status as Costa Rica
I remember a presentation at Ilisimatusarfik (University of Greenland) in 1998, given by the late Finn Lynge, presented a discussion paper on independence for Greenland. Finn, whom I knew personally, was an example of local knowledge that can easily compete with today's scientific lack of knowledge. Finn, earlier an author, communicator, member of the European Parliament, and consultant to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs possessed a considerable knowledge of Greenlandic conditions that we could all learn from.
During the lecture, he challenged the many voices that at the time pleaded for Greenlandic secession from Denmark through integration or cooperation with the United States. As he said, you only had to travel over to the "tribal relatives on the other side" (of the Davis Strait), and you would be able to see with your own eyes how well you are off in Greenland compared to the living conditions among the Inuit in Arctic Canada and Alaska. With Trump's announcements, fantasies about the American paradise have resurfaced despite the rampant poverty in the U.S. in general and especially in Indigenous communities. The continued unequal distribution of income and wealth has led to the proletarianization of the American middle class and an economy in crisis. You can hardly avoid a decline in living standards in Greenland if you are associated with the United States. You will not be able to obtain the same block grants if you choose to get the same status in relation to the United States as Costa Rica, the Virgin Islands in the Caribbean, or a Micronesian island like the Marshal Islands. The experiences regarding these areas' association with the U.S. cannot be transferred to Greenland due to special circumstances dictated by the geopolitical interests of the United States. Thule Air Base is under the auspices of the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Department of Defense. This is due in large part to the Monroe Doctrine, which states that "any attack on any part of the North American continent will be considered an aggression against the United States of America." In the event of warfare in the Arctic, fantasies of a Russian attack will turn Greenland into a base area for a sustained offensive against Russia. An offensive that, in reality, as in connection with the containment policy, is an expression of NATO's aggression.
The traditional view of security policy as military armament will inevitably clash with a Greenlandic desire for independence. In the event of such a development, the Americans will immediately ask what plans Greenland has to protect and defend their country. It doesn't take much imagination to see that the Yankee imperator will kindly and willingly "offer the much-needed help."
In the current situation and the journalistic sensations, Finn Lynge's thoughts are a welcomed realism. As he said to his listeners: "And then – we must admit – we are not independent. What is worse, none of us can do anything about that side of the story. The fact is that these two million square kilometers of mountains, fjords, and ice deserts are located in such an important place in the Arctic that the military strategists call it their "pearl." It must be monitored, patrolled, used, and, if necessary, defended with bombs and guns. We hate doing it, we can't bear to think about it, we never talk about it, but it's true. That's how it is."
Achieving Greenland's economic independence is a process within the Danish Realm. The block grant is the annual unilateral transfer of income from the Danish Government to Greenland with the purpose of maintaining an approximated Scandinavian living standard. Due to increasing economic independence, the Grant's GDP share in the Greenland economy is shrinking. When the value-added of the Greenland economy rises due to its own production without the block grant and its derived effects, this will be offset or equalized with a similar amount in the grant and other State expenditures regarding Greenland. The day the block grant is down to zero, it is agreed in the law of self-government that a renegotiation between Greenland and Danish governments will decide whether Greenland still wants to achieve the status of an independent microstate with all the increased costs this entails. In light of the current debate and the dominance of the United States with the Monroe Doctrine, even Greenland's declared independence will not be able to create real autonomy due to the hegemony of the United States – unless, of course, the geopolitical situation changes as a result of the fall of the American Empire!
Conclusions
Donald Trump stated during a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Florida, that Denmark must relinquish its sovereignty over Greenland for security policy reasons. This claim is surprising, as the United States already has full access to Greenlandic territory, including the military base in Thule and previously in Kangerlussuaq (Sondre Strømfjord). The U.S. has long sought to assert control over Greenland, making Trump's statements uninformative regarding the actual defense and security policies in the region. Essentially, he is demanding something the U.S. already possesses.
The 1951 agreement regarding the defense of Greenland explicitly grants the U.S. "free access to and movement between the defense areas throughout Greenland, including the territorial waters, on land, at sea, and in the air." Furthermore, the Self-Government Act for Greenland includes provisions about Greenland's foreign policy, which remains largely under Danish control. The Danish government and the "Folketinget" (the Danish Parliament) hold constitutional powers and responsibilities in foreign policy. Notably, defense and security matters are excluded from the self-government law, limiting Greenland's autonomy and reflecting Denmark's constrained role due to U.S. geopolitical interests.
It is misleading to justify U.S. security by portraying the nation as a guarantor of democracy and freedom worldwide. In reality, powerful U.S. policymakers, often backed by the military-industrial complex and transnational corporations, continue an imperialist agenda against countries and regions like Greenland that seek a self-reliant economic development. This approach violates international law regarding self-determination. The essence of U.S. policy in the Arctic revolves around energy and food security rather than an imaginary threat to the ideals of freedom and democracy. A critical realism perspective reveals that the true concern is access to and control over Arctic resources, primarily from Russia and Greenland, which present potential capital export opportunities for transnational corporations.
Romantic notions among the Inuit people in Greenland often foster the illusion that joining the U.S. would lead to an independent microstate. In reality, this would merely replace one colonial authority with another and could result in a lower standard of living for Greenlanders. Attaining Greenland's economic independence aligns with the self-government law. According to this law, if the block grant from the Danish state to Greenland ceases, a renegotiation between the Greenlandic and Danish governments will determine whether Greenland wishes to pursue independence. Given the current discourse and the overarching dominance of the United States, particularly with the Monroe Doctrine in mind, even asserted independence for Greenland may not result in genuine autonomy due to U.S. hegemony.
[1] Gorm Winther is the lead author and editor of Human Security through the New Traditional Economy in the Arctic, published by Routledge in 2025. He is a retired professor from Aalborg University and, previously, Greenland University. The author's expertise is in economic and political development in Greenland and the Arctic. Since 1984, he has published several books and articles in Danish and English in this field. Previously, in relation to the Participation, Workers' Control, Workers Self-management, and Self-Government course, he was a Course Director and a resource person at the Interuniversity Centre of Postgraduate Studies, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia, and later Croatia from 1984 to 1999. He was a visiting researcher in the Participation and Labor-managed Systems program at the Department of Economics at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, in 1984/85 and 1990/91. From 1998 to 2015, he was a Board member of the European Federation of Employee Share Ownership, Brussels, where he is now an honorable member.