Greenland Agonies
Trying to Explain the Inexplicable
I’m writing this the day of Pres. Trump’s address to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. He spoke of his intentions for Greenland and even said a forceful takeover is off the table. Many more things will surely be said about this topic, but it is in the news and should be discussed, even if not definitively.
The arguments against invading Greenland, bullying Denmark into selling it to the US, or bribing the residents of Greenland to hand it over to the US are so obvious that they hardly need to be made. Invasion, bullying, and bribing are acts of high statesmanship. But what is the case for acquiring this isolated island in the Arctic?
The strategic value of Greenland has been acknowledged by all parties. It is a massive island sitting between Europe, Russia, and the United States. A lot of people have commented on the trade routes that might open up through the Arctic if ice melts, but the more important issue is missile defense. All Russian missiles aimed at the Eastern half of the US would pass over Greenland. For the West of the country the missiles would pass over Alaska. A missile defense system on Greenland would be perfect. [Map from
Why doesn’t the US build its defensive system on Greenland now? Good question. The treaty between the US and Denmark (the governing body over Greenland) allows practically unlimited access for the US. During the Cold War there were as many as seventeen US bases on the island, almost all of which have been abandoned. What advantage would the US have in acquiring the island that it does not have now?
To answer that question we need to look to a strange political event going on in the United Kingdom. The current UK government is trying to transfer the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. While this can be seen as a continuation of decolonization begun after WWII, it has significant geopolitical implications.
The Chagos Islands are a series of small islands in the Indian Ocean. One of them is the atoll of Diego Garcia. Diego Garcia is the site of a large and strategically important American military base. It was from here that much of the bombing of Iran in the summer was coordinated and launched. The strategic location is highly significant for any American military activity in East Africa, the Middle East (including Iran), India, Pakistan, and even parts of China.
At first the American government supported the handover of Chagos to Mauritius, but that changed. The Trump administration is now asking PM Starmer to change his mind. The Chagos people do not want to leave the UK and a lot of British people are upset because the deal includes paying Mauritius to take the islands. But let’s return to the strategic issue.
China has been engaging in what it calls the Belt and Road Initiative. Based on the ancient Silk Road, the idea is to develop land and sea-based shipping routes. Communist China being Communist China, these routes come with strings attached. Many of the ports in the belt are built by China and, more significantly, owned by China. Local governments do not have any oversight of them, meaning that they are effectively Chinese military bases if they want them to be.
If you look at the map immediately above, you will notice that a line from Columbo to Lamu passes pretty close to the Chagos Islands, which of course include Diego Garcia. Now consider that Mauritius has close ties to China. Wouldn’t it be convenient for China to set up a “commercial port” close to one of the most strategic American military outposts? Hmm.
One more item out of Britain. The Starmer government has just approved a massive building project to expand the Chinese embassy in London. The plans (below) show several buildings without any stated purpose. Knowing that China operates prisons in all major cities in the world should make one suspicious. The building plans also have the basement extend up to a major route of telecommunications cables. If you don’t imagine that they could tap into sensitive information you haven’t read enough spy novels.
From the above, I can only assume that the Trump administration is concerned that the Danish government cannot be trusted to give and maintain access to Greenland. The British government seems to be giving China everything it wants, despite having even closer military and intelligence ties than the US and Denmark. That concern seems to be the only reason why the current lease agreement over Greenland is insufficient. This also accords with the recent National Security Strategy, released in November, that identifies weakness among European allies as one of the greatest dangers. This criticism is consistent across all the Cabinet secretaries regardless of their differences.
What I’m trying to do is understand the vehemence with which the Trump administration is pursuing an object that they already seem to hold. As is clear from the reaction of many Europeans, this dogged pursuit of Greenland is alienating even their allies. Trump’s actions could undermine populist political movements in Europe the same way his antagonistic comments about taking over Canada did. The Conservative Party in Canada was almost sure to win the last election until Trump started making crazy comments about turning it into the 51st state. Now the Liberal Prime Minister, Marc Carney, is cozying up to China.
If Trump is concerned that the Europeans are unreliable allies, he seems to be doing everything possible to make sure that is true.