The Birth of a New Ocean

Not even two weeks had passed since the capture of Maduro when Donald Trump announced his intention to take over Greenland. The idea is not new. The U.S. president had already hinted at acquiring the island in 2019 and again in 2025. The key difference now is that Trump’s words are more combative, and they come in the wake of a clear demonstration of power and disregard for international norms in what happened in Venezuela. Why does Trump want to take Greenland? What is the island’s current situation? Is it feasible that Trump could achieve his goal?

“I would like to make a deal, the easy way, but if we can’t do it the easy way, we’ll do it the hard way,” was the U.S. president’s comment when he referred to his intention to take over Greenland. Why is a frozen island with fewer than 60,000 inhabitants so important? The traditional answer would be resources. Greenland has large oil reserves and extensive deposits of rare earths. But its relevance goes far beyond that. The island’s true importance lies in its strategic position in the Arctic.

Whoever has dominated the seas has dominated the world, and today is no exception. Not only for military purposes but also for commercial ones, maritime control has been a priority for all great powers throughout history. From the Roman Empire’s control of the Mediterranean, through the imposing British Royal Navy in the Victorian era, to the absolute dominance of the seas achieved by U.S. aircraft carriers. Control of the ocean is the key to controlling the planet. And now, with global warming and constant technological advancement, a new and gigantic ocean is being born.

What was once a desolate and virtually impenetrable territory could, in just a few decades, become the new frontier of humanity. With the ongoing melting of Arctic ice and new icebreaker technologies, fast, safe, and inexpensive navigation across the North Pole will no longer be the stuff of science fiction. Today, a container ship leaving the port of Rotterdam, the largest in Europe, bound for Shanghai, can take between 40 and 50 days. With the new Arctic route, the estimated travel time would be between 15 and 20 days. As with the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal, whoever controls the Arctic will control a large share of global trade. Hence the geostrategic importance of Greenland.

The United States is aware of this, but so are Russia and China. “If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will take Greenland, and I’m not going to let that happen,” were Trump’s words. Although alarmist, since as part of Denmark the island is protected by NATO, they are not entirely unfounded. In recent years, China has increased its influence on the island, attempting to secure mining and energy contracts and offering to finance megaprojects. So far, nothing has materialized, as the United States has either financed the projects directly or pressured Denmark to halt negotiations with China. However, the delicate Greenland–Denmark relationship makes the future uncertain.

Currently, the island is an autonomous territory of Denmark. It enjoys a high degree of self-government and even has the right to secede if it so chooses. Although Greenlandic independence is very popular, exceeding 50 percent in all polls, the approximately 600 million dollars in annual subsidies that Denmark sends to the island are an overwhelming reality that maintains the status quo. The island’s vast natural resources make no difference, as the local government refuses to exploit them. This means that the 600 million dollars coming from Denmark amount to around 50 percent of the Greenlandic government’s budget and are equivalent to 20 percent of its total GDP. This fragile arrangement of refraining from secession as long as subsidies continue is the playing field, and there are three possible ways in which Trump could take over Greenland.

The first, and least likely, is military intervention. Trump is known for his impulsive and unpredictable actions, but invading an allied country that is part of NATO would cause the largest military alliance in history to disintegrate. In such a scenario, the United States would lose its main strategic allies, and all of its troops stationed on European soil would have to return to America. The power vacuum following NATO’s collapse would be far too high a price to pay for control of the island. Trump’s aggressive comments seem more like a tool of pressure than a real threat.

The second option is purchase. Although complicated, it is more viable than military intervention. Historical precedent is the main argument for this scenario. Most of American expansion in the nineteenth century occurred through this mechanism. From the purchase of Louisiana from France in 1803 to the purchase of Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867, the United States has always shown an expansionist interest supported by such legal arrangements. Donald Trump himself has set a possible purchase price: 700 billion dollars. However, this type of transaction feels anachronistic, and it is unlikely that Denmark would be willing to accept a deal of this nature.

Finally, the third option is independence. Strong economic backing from the United States could trigger Greenland to exercise its right to secession. In this scenario, the goal of the Trump administration would be to sponsor independence in order to achieve a possible annexation of Greenland as the 51st state of the American Union, something that already happened with Texas after its independence from Mexico. However, the repercussions of this option are uncertain.

Greenlandic independence is the most viable route available to the Trump administration, but it does not guarantee a future annexation. Although independence is popular among Greenlanders, recent polls show that nearly 85 percent would prefer to remain with Denmark rather than become part of the United States. This is without considering that an independent Greenland would open the door to more direct Chinese and Russian involvement on the island.

Trump surprised the world by capturing Nicolás Maduro. He demonstrated that at times he is capable of acting, not just talking. However, Greenland’s situation is not the same as Venezuela’s. Trump does not have the legitimate excuse of a narco-dictator that he had with Maduro, and no matter how much he wants to present himself as the neighborhood bully, he cannot attack an allied country. He may negotiate as much as he wants, but if Denmark and Greenland refuse, he will be left empty-handed. It is likely that through this process he may manage to expand the military permissions he already has on the island and even secure contracts for a U.S. company to exploit some resource. But we are still very far from seeing a new star sewn onto the American flag.