The race continues to monopolize the cheaper and safer shipping lane in the North Sea compared to the now dangerous Suez Canal due to the Red Sea and the Houthis. Also in the wider Arctic is thought to be 15% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas. China actually began investing in mining activities in Greenland in 2015.
It seems that President-elect Donald Trump has already committed (at least) three heresies:
- Buying Greenland,
- Stopping China from controlling the Panama Canal, and
- Connecting the US to Canada.
All three ideas are neither crazy nor new.
1. President Harry S. Truman considered acquiring Greenland in 1946.
2. Thomas Jefferson, after the Louisiana Purchase, proposed buying Cuba—just think how Cubans would prosper now, politically and economically, if that deal had been completed. Those acquisitions never happened, but in 1917, the U.S. purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark for $25 million.
As Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams arranged debt relief for Spain in exchange for Florida. Secretary of State William Seward purchased Alaska. What Trump is proposing is consistent with this American tradition. Land purchases account for more than 40 percent of U.S. land. That is, the United States today came from land acquisitions (for more analysis please read also the article titled “Trump in the footsteps of W.McKinley & W.H.Seward – Canada becomes 51st state of the USA & Greenland acquisition“).
“History teaches the benefits of being open-minded. The people of Alaska would not be better off under Russian rule. A closer relationship between Greenland and the United States, supported by economic subsidies, could prove beneficial for all parties.”
3. As for the Panama Canal, President Jimmy Carter handed it over to Panama for $1, but on the condition that it remain a neutral zone—not one controlled by China.
“We gave the Panama Canal to Panama,” Trump stressed.
“We did not give it to China. They have abused that gift.”
The US built the Panama Canal so that it could avoid commercial and military shipping around South America’s southernmost sea route, the Strait of Magellan – where the Chinese Communist Party also had a base.
If there were to be a conflict with communist China, it would be quite easy for them to block the Canal from US use.
China’s port facilities are located at both ends of the Panama Canal. And when General Laura Richardson took a helicopter ride over the Panama Canal Zone in mid-2022, she said she “looked down and saw all these dual-use facilities.”
In a time of war, they could make the canal completely useless. They say we have a two-ocean navy. Well, it would be very difficult to move ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific or vice versa.”
Closer ties with Canada, as Trump seems to see them, would make a somewhat unified North America a formidable land for any would-be adversary.
“Get rid of that artificially drawn line,” Trump declared, “and take a look at what it looks like, and it would also be a lot better for national security.
Don’t forget, we protect Canada.”
Trump has also announced a “Made in America” tax incentive for U.S. investment and a “Golden Age of America” if Canada joins in.
Trump’s thoughts are logical, not irrational
President Trump’s statements regarding the proposal to buy Greenland from Denmark have been the subject of ridicule throughout the Western world, especially in diplomatic and journalistic circles.
Other experts have even described such a plan as a sign of his alleged “megalomania.” Trump’s peculiar style is certainly unorthodox: his inflammatory tweets, his frequent disdain for some traditional American allies, and his willingness to ignore multilateral institutional frameworks often spark criticism from various quarters.
Trump is Classic Realpolitik
A closer look reveals that Trump’s foreign policy is generally consistent with the classic imperatives of US realpolitik.
His assertiveness towards China (arguably the US’s most important strategic adversary) and Iran (a subversive power seeking regional hegemony in the Greater Middle East), his efforts to disengage from dangerous operational theaters where no vital US interests are directly at stake, his encouragement of a stronger US presence in space, and his blunt moves to restructure transatlantic relations along post-Cold War parameters all make sense from a long-term geopolitical perspective.
What makes Greenland so desirable?
According to the CIA World Factbook, Greenland covers just over 2 million square kilometers—making it larger than Mexico—most of which is covered in ice. Furthermore, at just under 60,000 people, its population is impressively small…about half that of Berkeley, a California college town.
Furthermore, since Greenland’s economy is poorly diversified, it relies mostly on primary activities such as fishing. In terms of GDP, Greenland lags behind Tajikistan, Suriname, Montenegro, Barbados, Aruba, and Guyana. In other words, Greenland is far from being economically self-sufficient. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask why Greenland is sought after by the current US president (for more information about this issue please read the analysis titled “Why does the President of the United States want to buy Greenland?“)
1. Geography
To understand why Greenland is important, we must focus on geography, which is arguably the most important factor determining the behavior of international political dynamics. This is the basic premise of geopolitical thinking.
Therefore, Greenland’s close proximity to North America, Scandinavia, and the Arctic is geostrategically significant.
In fact, Greenland was the first island in the American hemisphere to be settled by European colonists (Norwegian sailors), several centuries before Columbus reached the Caribbean Sea in 1492.
However, establishing a substantial permanent presence in Greenland is notoriously difficult. The harsh tundra is one of the most hostile places on the planet for human survival, let alone economic development or conventional military activities.
It is simply impossible to live in such harsh conditions without heating, reliable supplies, and specialized equipment. Also, the island’s lack of vital infrastructure represents a formidable structural challenge.
However, the melting of the polar ice sheets could be a game-changer.
2. Vast deposits of rare earths
If this long-term trend accelerates in the near future, then it would be possible for Americans to tap into Greenland’s rich mineral deposits. According to some sources, these resources include ferrous metals, uranium and rare earth elements, which are vital for several key productive sectors of the so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution” and – perhaps most importantly – also for the manufacture of high-tech military equipment such as lasers, naval sonar systems, nuclear weapons, guided missiles, radars, satellite communications, advanced optical equipment and fighter jets.
It should be emphasized that, for reasons related to national security, Washington is interested in diversifying its supply of rare earth elements, in order not to be disproportionately dependent on China, the world’s leading producer of these mineral resources.
Based on this fact, the acquisition of Greenland – as a potential alternative source of these resources – makes a lot of sense.
Furthermore, even if the purchase of Greenland sounds strange to many international relations scholars, it should not be forgotten that – contrary to conventional wisdom – borders are constantly being redrawn.
The examples are countless.
Israel gained the Golan Heights as a result of its victory in the Six-Day War, Kosovo became independent from Serbia a decade ago, Germany reunited after several decades with East Germany, and Russia took the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine and, more recently, Eastern Ukraine.
Furthermore, the US has a military base there in Greenland, albeit a small one. Originally built in the 1940s, Thule Air Base – named after a mythical land supposedly located in the northernmost corners of the known world – is involved in aerospace surveillance duties and operating early warning systems.
As such, it is a major component of both the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the Air Force Space Command.
In addition, the US military also maintains a scientific research center in Greenland.
3. Competing Geopolitical Agendas
Another aspect that explains American geopolitical interest in Greenland is that, from a grand strategy perspective, the US also needs a strong coastline in close proximity to the North Pole – preferably even closer than Alaska – in order to function as a competitive player in the contested race for control of the Arctic.
It must be taken into account that Eurasian powers – Russia and, to a lesser extent, China – are aggressively seeking a dominant position in this critical region.
Russia the biggest player in the Arctic
In fact, according to Russian geostrategic thinking, control of the Arctic is a crucial step towards achieving global hegemony, considering the huge amount of natural resources it contains and, above all, its position as a potential corridor that could eventually provide an interconnection that could connect the northern parts of Europe, East Asia and the American hemisphere in both military and commercial navigation.
In addition, if the polar region becomes warmer in the long term, then Russia will be able to strengthen Siberia and develop ports. (please also read the analysis titled “New US ‘Arctic Strategy’ Leads to Russia-China Conflict Over Arctic Control“).
Russia is very aware of the value of the Arctic
Accordingly, the Russian presence is becoming increasingly visible in the region. Russia planted its national flag on the floor of the Arctic Ocean in 2007, as a symbolic gesture indicating Russia’s official claim that a significant portion of the Arctic is actually an extension of the Siberian continental shelf and that it should therefore be recognized as the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation.
In addition, Russian strategic bombers regularly patrol the country’s Arctic periphery, which has caused visible friction with the air forces of other regional states. Furthermore, Russia has an unparalleled lead in the construction of nuclear icebreakers.
China interested in Greenland for 38.5 million tons of rare earth oxides
Another interested party in the Arctic is, predictably, China, although its role has been more discreet than that of the Russians.
China actually began investing in mining activities in Greenland in 2015, a move that could be interpreted as an attempt to strengthen China’s market share as the world’s dominant supplier of rare earth elements.
According to some estimates, Greenland contains 38.5 million tons of rare earth oxides, while the rest of the world’s reserves reach 120 million tons… that is, Greenland accounts for 32% of the world’s rare earths…
Ice Silk Road
In addition, China is interested in building infrastructure and port facilities along Russia’s entire Arctic coastline – which includes locations such as Murmansk, Vladivostok, and Arkhangelsk – in order to enable the use of circular waterways for both commercial shipping and natural resource extraction.
This bilateral agreement between Russia and China is referred to as the “Ice Silk Road.” It is worth emphasizing that, for Beijing, such projects usually go beyond the economic and business sphere. In fact, they often respond to underlying geopolitical considerations (for more analysis on this issue please read the article titled “China wants to become an “Arctic superpower” by 2030“)
Therefore, regardless of Trump’s unorthodox style, geopolitics is a chessboard of conflicting forces. It is understandable that the US seeks to position itself – through the purchase of a highly geostrategic, if icy, island – as a powerful player intent on competing for direct control of a region whose importance is growing in importance for the evolution of the global balance of power in the coming decades.
Moreover, the strategic benefits would vastly outweigh the costs (related mainly to the amount of money that would have to be paid and the negligible impact of demographic absorption of Greenland’s small population).
If this bold effort comes to nothing (which is by far the most likely scenario given Denmark’s emphatic refusal to sell Greenland), it is reasonable to assume that the American Leviathan will find other ways to counter the advance of Eurasian behemoths in the Arctic.
Conclusion
Contrary to what some international scholars claim, geography is far from irrelevant as a decisive condition framing the course of international politics. The world is simply not flat.
Locations matter, and in the ruthless game of grand strategy, some places are more important than others for different reasons. Accordingly, the struggle for their control leads to systemic geopolitical tensions.
If anything, territorial competition between great powers whose strategic national interests are often difficult to reconcile is as strong as ever.
Another interesting lesson is that when geographical conditions change, structural incentives arise to reshape operational parameters and redefine priorities.
It is no surprise that geography is a factor that has powerfully shaped the course of history many times. Given the evidence, this is unlikely to change anytime soon.
The only difference is that modern geopolitical realities are much more complex and dynamic than in previous centuries – but their basic principles still hold true.
