THE IMPLICATIONS OF U.S. CLAIMS ON GREENLAND FOR DENMARK AND GREENLAND, AND POTENTIAL REACTIONS

The United States' interest in acquiring or exerting control over Greenland has resurfaced recently, particularly following statements made by President Trump. However, this interest has deep historical roots dating back to the 19th century. The renewed focus on Greenland is driven by its strategic significance and the potential of its natural resources. This situation creates a complex geopolitical dynamic between the Kingdom of Denmark, which currently holds sovereignty over Greenland, and the autonomous region of Greenland, which is seeking independence. The U.S. persistent stance on this matter can be interpreted as a response to long-term strategic necessities. Key factors supporting the continuity of this interest include shifts in global power dynamics and the increasing accessibility of the Arctic region.

The initial concrete manifestation of the United States' interest in Greenland emerged in 1867, shortly after the acquisition of Alaska, when Secretary of State William H. Seward contemplated the annexation of both Greenland and Iceland. The motivations during this early period included the potential for coal deposits and fishing resources in Greenland, the desire to counter British influence, and the aim of encouraging Canada to join the United States. A report prepared under Seward's direction positively highlighted Greenland's resources. Although negotiations for the purchase of both islands for $5.5 million made significant progress in 1868, no formal offer was made due to a lack of support from the U.S. Congress. Interest was rekindled in 1910 with a proposal from the U.S. Ambassador to Denmark. In 1917, the U.S. purchased the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) in exchange for recognizing Denmark's sovereignty over all of Greenland. This incident indicated that territorial negotiations between the two nations had previously been feasible. Greenland's strategic significance became particularly evident during World War II, when, following Germany's occupation of Denmark, the U.S. occupied the island in 1940. This action was justified under the Monroe Doctrine, aiming to prevent Germany from utilizing Greenland for military purposes. During this period, a substantial U.S. military presence was established on the island. At the onset of the Cold War in 1946, President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million, citing Greenland's strategic location as the rationale. However, Denmark declined this offer. Throughout the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a significant military presence in Greenland, particularly at Thule Air Base, under a defense agreement established in 1951. In 1955, the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff once again raised the proposal to purchase Greenland. Although interest in this idea diminished with the conclusion of the Cold War, it experienced a resurgence in the 21st century, particularly during President Donald Trump's administration. Trump's motivations included Greenland's strategic location in the Arctic, its abundant mineral resources, and a desire to counter the increasing influence of Russia and China in the region. There were even claims that Trump suggested a trade involving Puerto Rico. However, these initiatives were met with firm rejections from both the governments of Greenland and Denmark, which emphasized Greenland's right to self-determination.

Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland is firmly established in international law. This sovereignty is supported by historical legal developments, including the long-standing peaceful and uninterrupted exercise of authority over the island, as well as the absence of any persistent or legally recognized objections from other states. A significant legal precedent was set in 1933 when the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) ruled in favor of Denmark in the case concerning the "Legal Status of Eastern Greenland," thereby affirming Denmark's sovereignty over the entire island. Furthermore, in 1994, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in favor of Denmark in a maritime boundary dispute with Norway near Jan Mayen, basing its decision on Greenland's status as territory under Danish sovereignty. Beyond these judicial rulings, various international agreements and the tacit or explicit consent of other states further bolster Denmark's legal claims. For instance, countries such as the Netherlands, France, and Sweden have recognized Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland, and in 1916, the United States issued a statement indicating it would not contest Denmark's political and economic interests in Greenland. Additionally, several defense agreements between the U.S. and Denmark concerning Greenland, signed in 1941, 1951, and 2004, indirectly acknowledge Denmark's sovereignty. The fact that both the U.S. and Denmark are members of the Arctic Council, which requires observer states to recognize the sovereignty of Arctic nations, also favors Denmark, as no objections regarding Greenland's sovereignty have been raised within the Council.

Furthermore, the absence of any objections from the United States during Denmark's submission of information regarding Greenland's northern continental shelf to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) in 2014 is regarded as a significant aspect of international law. Despite President Trump's recent questioning of Denmark's legal rights over Greenland, international law experts generally assert that these claims lack a solid legal foundation and that Denmark's sovereignty has been firmly established. Greenland holds an autonomous region status within the Kingdom of Denmark and has significantly increased its self-governing powers over the past few decades. This advancement has been notably facilitated by the internal autonomy granted in 1979 and the further expansion of self-governance in 2009, which also recognized Greenland's right to declare independence from Denmark through a referendum. Today, Greenland possesses its own government (Naalakkersuisut) and parliament (Inatsisartut), which manage most of its internal affairs. However, key areas such as foreign policy, defense, and monetary policy remain under Denmark's control. A crucial element of this relationship is Denmark's provision of substantial annual block grants, which constitute a significant portion of Greenland's economy. The pursuit of full independence from Denmark has been a long-term political objective for Greenland, evidenced by the preparation of a constitutional draft for an independent Greenland in 2023 and the official declaration that independence is the ultimate goal. In the context of the United States' interest in purchasing the territory, there exists a strong and unified opposition among Greenlandic political actors and the general publictowards the idea of joining the U.S. Polls consistently reflect this sentiment. All five parties represented in the Greenlandic parliament have publicly rejected the idea of annexation by the United States. Prime Minister Egede has notably emphasized this stance by stating, "Greenland is ours," and highlighting that Greenlanders aspire to be independent Greenlanders rather than Danish or American citizens. The recent parliamentary elections, which resulted in the victory of the Demokraatit Party—advocating a more moderate approach towards independence—further reinforce this prevailing sentiment. Looking ahead, some experts suggest the possibility of a Compact of Free Association (COFA) with the United States in the post-independence period. This arrangement could enable Greenland to maintain self-governance while preserving close economic and defense ties with the U.S.; however, such an agreement would require approval from both the Greenlandic and Danish governments.

The potential impact of U.S. claims on the Danish economy is generally considered to be limited. Although the Greenlandic economy is significant for the island, it constitutes only a small fraction (approximately 0.8%) of Denmark's total GDP. Similarly, the trade volume between Denmark and Greenland represents a minor percentage of Denmark's overall exports and imports. While the loss of Greenland would mean the cessation of the annual block grant provided by Denmark (4.3 billion DKK in 2024) and the elimination of costs associated with services such as defense and policing in Greenland, these expenditures account for only a small portion (0.1% of GDP) of Denmark's total public finances.

The potential tariffs that the United States may impose on Danish companies due to the Greenland issue could lead to some disruptions; however, the overall impact on Denmark's total exports is expected to be limited, given that many large Danish firms have significant production facilities in the U.S. Furthermore, such tariffs could provoke a unified response from the European Union (EU), potentially resulting in retaliatory tariffs on selected American goods. Regarding Greenland, the economic implications of a potential U.S. annexation are more complex. Currently, Greenland's economy heavily relies on the fishing industry and substantial financial support from Denmark. Nevertheless, the island possesses significant potential for economic diversification and growth through its rich mineral resources, including rare earth elements, oil, and gas, as well as a developing tourism sector. A U.S. annexation could lead to substantial investments in the extraction of these resources and the necessary infrastructure development. However, there is widespread concern among Greenlanders about the possibility of creating a new form of economic dependency on the United States, with many advocating for economic diversification before pursuing full independence. Estimates of the potential purchase price for Greenland by the U.S. vary widely, ranging from billions to trillions, depending on the valuation methods employed.

The geographical location of Greenland in the Arctic region holds significant strategic importance in the current geopolitical landscape. Its position between North America and Europe, along with its proximity to the Arctic and North Atlantic Oceans, indicates a critical role for military and defense purposes. This strategic positioning is particularly vital for monitoring the increasing military activities of Russia and China in the Arctic. Furthermore, with climate change potentially opening new Arctic maritime trade routes, Greenland's location may become even more crucial for global commerce. The island currently hosts the Pituffik Space Base (formerly known as Thule Air Base), which is essential for missile early warning systems, missile defense, and space surveillance operations for both the United States and NATO. As a territory of Denmark, Greenland is under the security guarantees provided by NATO, of which Denmark is a founding member. The United States and Denmark have maintained a longstanding bilateral defense partnership that includes joint patrols around Greenland. The U.S. military frequently participates in NATO exercises in the waters surrounding Greenland. Should Greenland achieve full independence, a careful reassessment of its future relationship with NATO will be necessary. The increasing strategic significance of the Arctic region, coupled with the growing interest from countries like Russia and China, may lead to a reconfiguration of Arctic governance structures and potential realignments among Arctic states. From the perspective of the United States, the acquisition of Greenland is viewed as a means to bolster national security interests and counter the rising influence of China and Russia in the Arctic. President Trump has explicitly stated that he believes U.S. ownership and control of Greenland is "an absolute necessity" for national security and global freedom. Within the U.S., there are particular concerns regarding China's strategic positioning in the North American Arctic through Greenland. Although the U.S. already has a significant military presence on the island, it appears to be seeking greater control to further strengthen its strategic posture in the region.

In response to the intensifying claims from the United States, Denmark has consistently maintained a clear stance: Greenland is not for sale. Should the U.S. pursue its claims more aggressively, Denmark is likely to seek diplomatic support from its allies, particularly from countries within the European Union. Additionally, in response to perceived threats or instability in the region, there may be internal pressure on the Danish government to enhance its military presence and investment in Greenland's security. A crucial point to note is Denmark's recognition of the right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination, including the possibility of independence. The response of Greenland to the United States' claims has been overwhelmingly negative, demonstrating a strong and unified stance against the idea of joining the United States. The interest shown by the U.S. has, in fact, bolstered the movement for complete independence from Denmark, with many Greenlanders viewing this as an opportune moment to assert their sovereignty. While direct annexation by the U.S. is likely to encounter fierce resistance, some experts suggest that an independent Greenland might consider a Compact of Free Association (COFA), which would allow it to self govern while enabling the U.S. to manage its defense and foreign policy. Alternatively, Greenland may contemplate establishing closer ties with the European Union for economic and political security. Furthermore, it is plausible that Greenland could engage in direct negotiations with the U.S. regarding specific defense and security arrangements even before achieving full independence from Denmark. Should the U.S. attempt unilateral annexation of Greenland, it may face legal challenges in international courts; however, it is important to note that the U.S. does not recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

President Trump's repeated interest in purchasing Greenland has notably led to significant social and cultural repercussions within the territory. These statements, particularly the implications that the island could be forcibly acquired, have accelerated the pursuit of complete independence from Denmark to an unprecedented degree. Many Greenlanders perceive this situation as a threat to their cultural identity, traditions, and deep connections to their land, leading to considerable concern. The emphatic declaration that "Greenland is not for sale" reflects the desire of Greenlanders to be recognized and respected as independent individuals, distinct from both Danish and American identities. Some Greenlanders view the opportunity to establish a more direct relationship with the United States and gain greater autonomy from Denmark as a potential benefit. However, there are also concerns regarding the possibility of becoming an overseas territory of the U.S., which would entail a lack of full voting rights and political influence. In Denmark, statements made by Trump have led to a degree of political unrest and a heightened awareness of the shifting geopolitical landscape. While reaffirming the significance of the Denmark-U.S. relationship, it is acknowledged that Trump's approach has created a more uncertain and potentially challenging environment. Certain factions in Greenland have also pointed out that Denmark's historical policies of cultural assimilation have influenced the current quest for independence.

In conclusion, the United States' historical and recently revived claims over Greenland present a complex geopolitical issue that encompasses historical ambitions, established international legal norms, the strong political aspirations of the Greenlandic people, significant economic considerations, evolving security dynamics in the Arctic region, and the varied diplomatic and political responses from Denmark and Greenland. Despite the U.S.'s long standing interest and Greenland's strategic importance, Denmark's legal sovereignty is widely recognized in the international arena, and the prevailing sentiment within Greenland strongly supports the pursuit of independence over joining the United States. While the economic implications for Denmark may be limited, Greenland faces a more intricate situation; potential U.S. investments could offer economic opportunities but also pose new risks of dependency. The geopolitical significance of Greenland in the Arctic is undeniable, and the U.S. efforts to acquire the island are situated within the broader context of NATO and Arctic governance. Ultimately, the most likely scenario is that Greenland will persist in its pursuit of independence, firmly resisting the United States' attempts to purchase the territory, in alignment with the will of both the people of Denmark and Greenland. 

KAYNAKÇA

https://www.arctictoday.com/trump-isnt-the-first-the-u-s-has-repeatedly-tried-to-buy-greenland-since-1868/

https://visitgreenland.com/american-interest-in-greenland/

https://apnews.com/article/buy-greenland-trump-united-states-denmarkc5c2169a4b43c133eacbc4529126f3b5

https://denmark.dk/people-and-culture/greenland

https://www.politico.eu/article/greenland-boosts-center-right-and-pro-independence-parties-in-crucialelection/

https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-denmark/

SEMANUR AYDEMIR

REGIONAL ANALYSIS COMMUNITY

POLITICAL SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

MUGLA SITKI KOCMAN UNIVERSITY