President Trump demands that Denmark, a NATO ally, give us Greenland. The Danes refuse and Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has said, in so many words, not only no but hell no.
Perhaps Secretary of State Rubio — who is also National Security Adviser — could urge him to back down.
Greenland is a strategically-located territory. It is in the path that Russian or Chinese missiles would travel to get to the United States. All but a bit of it lies above 60 degrees North latitude, and it stretches almost to the North Pole.
We already have a base there. It used to be called Thule Air Force Base and is now called Pittufik Space Force Base, and it is relatively close to the northwest corner of the nation, well above the Arctic Circle. The base has existed since it was established in 1946 as a weather station.
It’s mighty cold there, the average annual temperature being about 12 degrees Fahrenheit. It’s a place that young Air Force officers (such as I used to be) were threatened with transfer to if they screwed up. (Fortunately, I didn’t.)
The president has raised tariffs by 10 percent on European countries that opposed his demand, including goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland. The tariff increases will rise, the president said, to 25 percent on June 1 and remain in place until a deal is reached for what he called the “complete and total purchase” of Greenland.
Why ownership of Greenland is necessary is absolutely unclear. Trump has said that we need it for national security to build his “Golden Dome” missile defense system which is true. But the president could accomplish all he needs by treaty with Denmark, which is among our friendliest NATO allies. Or used to be until Trump made his demand for Greenland.
Trump has also said that anything less than U.S. control of Greenland is unacceptable and that NATO would be stronger if the U.S. took possession of it. That’s clearly untrue.
Russia has about 20 bases above the Arctic Circle. China has no official bases but its “research stations” there serve the much same purpose.
Worse still Russia has, for more than a decade, been developing military weapons and equipment specifically to function at extremely low temperatures. Russia is prepared to fight in the Arctic and the Chinese are well along the same path. We aren’t prepared for war above the Arctic Circle.
Denmark and Greenland could have welcomed the U.S. investment in its security. So why raise tariffs? It is destructive of NATO. Danish Prime Minister Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said last Monday that an American takeover of Greenland would amount to the end of the alliance.
Why would Trump want to break up NATO? Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping want to destroy NATO so why play into their hands?
Trump has little regard for NATO. Its nations, he is correct in saying, have done little to invest in their own defenses since NATO was established after World War Two. If we extended our missile defenses to them they could, again, deny those investments. They are, with few exceptions, already doing so already.
Germany is not doing its share and neither are France, Italy, or the UK. A few soldiers from the NATO nations have deployed to Greenland in protest of Trump’s demand. But Denmark and Greenland have increased their promises of cooperation with the U.S. including more aircraft, ships, and troops from NATO nations.
Both Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have held talks with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who noted that they and their Greenlandic colleague had “a frank but also constructive discussion” but their “perspectives continue to differ.”
As well they should. There is no benefit to Denmark in surrendering its territory of Greenland to the U.S.
De facto U.S. control of Greenland, as I wrote above, could be accomplished by treaty. We could, and should, expand our space based-missile defenses to Greenland. That would require us to also defend the NATO nations from missile attack. We can and should declare that we would defend the NATO nations from any missile attacks from Russia or China.
Trump has his hands full with the crises in Iran and Venezuela. Our military forces are already stretched thin as demonstrated by the redeployments of our carriers USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Carl Vinson to the Middle East. He shouldn’t be making things worse by demanding ownership of Greenland.
Trump is known for changing his mind quickly. Perhaps Secretary of State Rubio — who is also National Security Adviser — could urge him to back down. He must if we are going to hold NATO, such as it is, together.
READ MORE from Jed Babbin:
A Dying Regime With a Loaded Gun
A Trump-Worthy Year for the Military