President-elect Donald Trump said Tuesday he would not rule out using military force to annex Greenland, leaving many Americans wondering, “But why?”
In fact, the ice-covered Danish territory, the world's largest island, is located along an important shipping route and despite Copenhagen's claims that it is not for sale. This has long been a hot topic among strategists in Washington and elsewhere. We use key ingredients rarely found elsewhere.
“Why? Several important reasons,” a person close to the Trump transition effort told The Post on Tuesday when asked about the president-elect's goals. “Send a strong and purposeful message to the Chinese government. Don't just talk. Action. Make America ambitious again.
“And the president-elect is laying out the initial framework for the 'Trump Doctrine.'”
According to the newspaper, the United States is currently locked in a three-way conflict with China and Russia over natural resources in the Arctic, including lithium, cobalt and graphite. Wilson Centera Washington-based think tank specializing in foreign policy.
“There are two main reasons [to annex Greenland]. “First, there are large reserves of rare earth elements needed for critical defense and electronics manufacturing,” Atlantic Council Nonresident Fellow Alex Pritsas told the Post.
“Second, Greenland has legitimately significant claims to the Arctic, which would give the United States a stronger position as competition for navigation and resources intensifies.”
Arctic access and resources
The United States has long been in a quiet battle with China and Russia over access to the Arctic, sending military icebreakers there on missions to explore the resource-rich frozen tundra.
The U.S. government has traditionally relied too heavily on China for rare earth minerals. Rare earth minerals are most commonly found in the Arctic as well as Asia, and are used in everything from cell phones to weapons of mass destruction.
According to Pritsas, this dependence on China is “not sustainable given geopolitical realities.”
“Other major deposits exist in places like Afghanistan, but this too is not viable for a number of reasons,” he pointed out.
“With growing demand for electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, and advanced electronics, the U.S. is poised to become a critical material to drive innovation and maintain global economic competitiveness,” the Wilson Center said in a 2023 report. A lot depends on it,” he said.
“[Rare earth minerals] They are integrated into most national defense, technology, missiles, tanks, satellites, warships, and fighter aircraft, making their availability a national security imperative.'' Center for Strategic and International Studies Critical Minerals Gracelyn Bhaskaran, Security Program Director, explained. .
On the other hand, synthetic real earth elements made in a lab, in Pritsas' words, “do not perform as well, leaving the United States vulnerable in terms of defense manufacturing as tensions with China have continued to rise in recent years.” “It's happening.”
Competition for the Arctic has intensified in recent years due to climate change, with melting ice sheets that have previously made resources nearly impossible to reach.
“Warming weather has given us more freedom of navigation in the Arctic,” Pritsas said.
But limited U.S. access to the region and a relatively small number of icebreakers have so far kept the U.S. ahead of its adversaries.
The issue has long bothered some Republicans, including Rep. Mike Walz (R-Florida), whom President Trump nominated to be his national security adviser.
“In the Arctic, where we compete for natural resources, #coast Guards need more than one icebreaker! Russia has dozens! “he Posted in X In 2017.
The Coast Guard currently only has two critical vessels, but Walz recently called for more in the 119th Congress in response to a post by X calling for “12 more icebreakers.” He vowed to propel the ship forward.
“That's the plan!” Waltz promised on December 24th..
The addition of icebreakers and the acquisition of Greenland are particularly attractive prospects now that the United States is building more rare earth mineral processing plants as part of recent moves to reduce dependence on China.
But the U.S.'s rare earth minerals account for only 1.3% of the world's rare earth minerals, compared to up to 70% of China's rare earth minerals. That's what gives Greenland some of its appeal as a source of rare earth minerals,” Bhaskaran said.
“Not for sale”
President Trump's ambitions have not been well received in Denmark, where Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reiterated on Tuesday that the territory is “not for sale.”
“Greenland belongs to Greenlanders,” Frederiksen said in an interview with Denmark's TV2. “On the one hand, I am happy about the growing US interest in Greenland. But, of course, it is important that it is done in such a way that it is the decision of the Greenlanders what their future will be.”
Kuno Fenker, a member of Greenland's parliament, said the island only gained full autonomy in 2009, and since then the territorial government has been working towards achieving sovereignty. told CNN on tuesday.
“As far as ownership, we may have quite a difference of opinion here, because we are working on creating a sovereign state of Greenland and we want to create a Greenlandic state. ,” Fenker said, adding that the territorial government may agree. Cooperate with the United States in the Agreement of Free Association.
The United States already has such agreements with Pacific island nations such as Palau. These agreements require Washington to provide financial assistance to free member states and also extend the right to work and live in the United States to islanders as “permanent residents.”
“The main [point] this is greenland [status] It should be [a] “It was a tough decision, what kind of nation we wanted to be and who should we work with and should we work with our closest allies, we were under Danish rule,” Fenker said. .
President Trump, 78, may be willing to talk with Greenland officials about an alternative deal that does not result in full annexation, transition sources said.
“I think it's fair to say there are multiple options because we have the flexibility to discuss the best way to strengthen U.S. security,'' the official said.
not a new idea
The United States had long been interested in acquiring Greenland and considered making a bid for the North Atlantic island in 1867, when it also purchased Alaska from Russia.
Almost 80 years later, after World War II, the United States made a bid for $100 million in gold bullion for Greenland, which Denmark rejected.
However, this proposal led to a defense treaty granting the United States access to Thule Air Base (now Pitufik Cosmodrome). Thule Air Base is the military's northernmost outpost, and its proximity to Russia made it extremely important during the Cold War.
President Trump floated the idea of buying Greenland during his first term and mused about the possibility publicly in 2019, but it was flatly rejected by the leaders of Greenland and Denmark.
“The negotiations never got done,” former national security adviser John Bolton told the Free Press in an interview published last week. “Because President Trump said everything publicly and everything exploded.”
