Can the United States Actually Buy Greenland?

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Fredericton, NB] Daily Gleaner

Recent statements by U.S. President Donald Trump indicating that he would like to “buy” Greenland, currently a Danish possession, have not gone over well on the world’s largest island. All five parties in Greenland’s newly elected parliament have rejected Trump’s calls to take over the strategically important Arctic island.

Greenland and the Faroe Islands, northwest of Britain, are semi-autonomous regions within the Kingdom of Denmark, and the United States has a strong relationship with them, including regular dialogues on commercial, scientific, and cultural cooperation. The U.S. Consulate in Nuuk, Greenland, reopened on June 10, 2020, after the first U.S. Consulate there closed in 1953.

But Trump seems serious. During talks with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte at the White House on March 13, he stressed the strategic importance of Greenland and maintained that U.S. control of the island was necessary for international security.

“You know, Mark, we need that for international security,” he told Rutte, even suggesting NATO should be involved, but Rutte demurred, replying only that he wanted to stay out of the debate and did not want to “drag NATO into that.”

Regarding Trump’s declarations, Danish Ambassador to Ottawa Nikolaj Harris stated, while addressing a meeting in Charlottetown Feb. 25, that this was not some idle threat: “We are taking it very seriously.” Nonetheless, he said, it is a non-starter.

The Danish government announced a huge boost in defence spending for Greenland after Trump repeated his desire to purchase the Arctic territory. Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said the package was at least $1.5 billion.

The 57,000 indigenous inhabitants of Greenland, who call themselves Kalaallit, an Inuit ethnic group, have a great deal of internal self-government and would need to be taken into account in any deals regarding their island.

In Greenland’s March 11 election, five out of six parties on the ballot favoured Greenland’s independence from Denmark, differing only on how quickly that should come about. The debate had been “put on steroids by Trump,” according to Masaana Egede, editor of the Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq.

Greenland’s pro-business opposition Demokraatit party, which favours a slow approach to independence from Denmark, secured 30.3 per cent of the votes. But the Naleraq opposition party, which is pushing for more immediate independence, came second at 24.8 per cent. The result more than doubled their share in the 2021 general election, beating the ruling Ataqatigiit party, which led the last government, by around three per cent of the vote.

Demokraatit won by campaigning to improve housing and educational standards while delaying independence until Greenland is self-sufficient. Four years ago, the party finished in fourth place with just 9.1 per cent.

Ataqatigiit came in at 21.6 per cent this year, down five percent. Its former coalition partner, Siumut, which also seeks a slow path toward independence, took 14,9, down six per cent. Their combined 36.5 per cent of the vote was down from 66.1 per cent in 2021, marking a historic defeat for a Greenlandic coalition government. The election was also the first time since 1987 where a centrist party came in first place over more left-wing parties.

The 31 members elected to parliament will have to set priorities for issues such as diversifying Greenland’s economy, building infrastructure and improving healthcare, as well as shaping the country’s strategy for countering the U.S. president’s “America first” agenda. According to recent polls, some 85 per cent of Greenlanders back moves towards future sovereignty.

“We don’t want to be Americans. No, we don’t want to be Danes. We want to be Greenlanders, and we want our own independence in the future,” Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the leader of the Demokraatit party, declared after his victory. “And we want to build our own country by ourselves.” Now, Demokraatit will have to turn its attention to forming a governing coalition.

Outgoing prime minister Mute Egede announced he would convene a meeting of party leaders to jointly reject Trump’s threats, warning: “Enough is enough. This time we need to toughen our rejection of Trump. People cannot continue to disrespect us.”

Pele Broberg, the head of second-place Naleraq, suggested that an independent Greenland would pursue a “compact of free association” with the U.S. including a defence pact after achieving independence. (Washington has such an arrangement with three Pacific microstates.) So a party that favors a closer relationship with the U.S. now has tremendous influence.

Ambassador Harris, while on Prince Edward Island along with diplomats from Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, indicated that Copenhagen is willing to engage with the U.S. over its legitimate concerns regarding the defence of the Arctic region against a potential enemy, particularly Russia. Washington already has military assets in Greenland and seems to have had no issue with this before Trump took office, he noted.

Denmark hosts Pituffik Space Force Base in Greenland, which provides great strategic value for U.S. and NATO military forces. Since the 1950s, Pittufik has enabled space superiority and provided a critical early-warning radar system that improves U.S. and NATO military capabilities in the Arctic region. 

In 1917, Denmark sold the Danish West Indies in the Caribbean Sea to the United States; the islands are now known as the U.S. Virgin Islands. Could Trump have got the idea of buying Greenland from this earlier American acquisition?  

 

 

Should P.E.I. Consider its Own U.S. Agreement?

 By Henry Srebrnik, Charlottetown Guardian, March 20, 2025

From the time I taught Island Studies at the University of Prince Edward Island, I have pointed to the American compact of free association with three small sovereign states in the South Pacific as a potential model for Prince Edward Island were Canada to fall apart.

Before you scoff, remember, nothing is impossible. Every empire in history has come and gone; in the last century, major states such as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia disintegrated. Few people a decade earlier saw that coming.

And when, since the 19^th century, has an American head of state broached the idea of acquiring Canada as the “fifty-first state,” and putting immense pressure on the country via tariffs?

The notion that Canada would somehow willingly incorporate itself into the United States was widely treated as a joke when Donald Trump first raised it. But he has continued to harp on the topic to the point where it seems increasingly clear that he is serious.

“The only thing that makes sense is for Canada to become our cherished Fifty First State,” he wrote on social media recently. “This would make all tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear.” He added, in reference to the northern border, “the artificial line of separation drawn many years ago will finally disappear, and we will have the safest and most beautiful nation anywhere in the world.”

Let’s face it: As Aris Roussinos, a columnist for the British website UnHerd and a former war reporter, wrote recently, “Trump’s annexation threats to Canada derive from Canada making itself so interwoven, economically and in security terms, with the U.S. that its independence is essentially fictional.”

Many now think the Justin Trudeau decade has been a disaster for Canada, economically, but even more so politically. He ran the country as his own personal hobby, denouncing all opponents as peddlers of “hate.” All this has led up to the current confrontation between Trudeau’s “woke world” and the new anti-DEI United States administration. Call it the cunning reason of history.

Is Donald Trump the final act, come to pick up the pieces, the way Fortinbras does in the final scene of “Hamlet,” when everyone else is dead? And is it too late for Mark Carney, uncrowned pretender to the throne, to save the country?

Should such a disaster strike Canada – certainly Trump likes the idea! -- the eastern provinces would be hardest hit. There would be no more transfer payments coming mostly from an Alberta, which would either go it alone as a sovereign entity or join the U.S. And we would be geographically blocked from Ontario by an obviously independent Quebec.

And so I have asked students to look at the Compact of Free Association model with the U.S. for a little island like P.E.I., which perhaps would find itself not even part of a potential “Maritime Union” but might find itself an island micro-state. We’d be literally adrift in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence.

I have written about this before but clearly it was a far-fetched possibility, a kind of political doomsday scenario. Now, though, thanks to the “Trump Effect,” this idea has gained traction in another potential micro-state (in terms of population), Greenland. Trump insists he’s serious about acquiring the island. It has entered the realm of debate.

Greenland’s critical role in American security is equal to, if not greater than, that of the Pacific Freely Associated States of Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. And this would be even more so the case for P.E.I. were Canada to fail.

These Pacific islands after they acquired independence -- they were American-ruled UN Trust Territories following the Second World War -- each entered into a Compact of Free Association (COFA) with Washington, conveying to the latter exclusive military access to their territory and, critically, the right to deny such access to other powers.

In return, the “freely associated” states receive substantial economic development assistance and investment from the United States. The benefits of a COFA to its signatories include the opportunity for their residents to reside and work in the United States and be eligible for Federal programs and services.

Additionally, the COFA provides economic assistance for fifteen or twenty years, including the establishment of an economic trust fund and sectoral assistance for education, health, the environment, public sector capacity-building, private sector development, and infrastructure.

The United States is obligated to defend the Compact countries against outside coercion or aggression, and it allows for the stationing of U.S. military personnel. The three nations also have seats at the United Nations and numerous other international organizations. It represents a mutually beneficial agreement bolstering the national interests of all parties. Yes, it seems you can have your cake and eat it too!

 

America’s “Trump Doctrine” Will Reshape International Relations

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Winnipeg] Jewish Post

Donald Trump’s return to the White House marks the beginning of a new era on the global stage and is expected to bring significant changes to the international balance of power.

Trump capitalized on a sense of discontent that had been building since the end of the Cold War in the 1990s and was galvanized by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Many of his advisers are part of a foreign policy movement on the Republican Party right who call themselves “restrainers” and are against what they consider America’s 21^st century involvement in “forever wars.” For them, the neoconservative interventionists have overextended the country’s commitment abroad.

President Trump’s policy in his second term will continue to concentrate on distinct American interests. His America First emphasis means Trump is likely to reduce involvement in international institutions, while demanding that NATO and other allies take greater responsibility for their own defence.

The Middle East today features dangers and opportunities that were not present when he first took office eight years ago. The greatest danger remains Iran’s advances toward acquiring nuclear weapons. The best opportunities have emerged from Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah and Hamas, its successful attacks on Iran, and the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

A year and a half ago, Iran’s foreign policy could possibly have been considered enormously successful. But since then, Israel has turned the tables. Hamas will not again pose a serious military threat to Israel. The Israelis have wiped out Hezbollah’s leadership and given Lebanon a chance to reclaim its sovereignty. And Assad’s regime is gone.

Weakening Iran will be a priority. Trump is expected to intensify the “maximum pressure” policy on Iran, including imposing additional severe sanctions and making a concentrated effort to ensure their enforcement. To stop Tehran’s nuclear ambitions may also require the credible threat of military action. He is likely to seek to strengthen the regional front against Iran, including close cooperation with Israel and the Gulf states.

Trump’s proposal that the United States “take over” and rebuild Gaza while its residents live elsewhere is far-fetched. But it might better be seen as a reflection of the fact that no realistic plan for Gaza exists. Since 2005, when the Israelis withdrew from Gaza, Washington has tried to buy off Hamas – and this culminated in the 2023 attacks. While the administration may continue to oppose Israel’s annexation of the West Bank, any future participation of Hamas in Palestinian self-government is unacceptable.

Trump will continue efforts to stabilize Lebanon, particularly following the election of Washington’s preferred candidate, Joseph Aoun, as its president. The U.S. will demand that the Lebanese armed forces prevent a renewed Hezbollah presence in the south and guard Lebanon’s borders to stop Iranian arms supplies from entering.

As for Turkey, relations may continue to be contentious, particularly regarding Ankara’s antagonism to the Kurds in northern Syria, its hostility toward Israel and support for Hamas, and growing closeness to Russia and China. Washington might try to influence the new Syrian regime, which, after all, seeks to consolidate its power and present itself as striving for a more Western-oriented approach. It will also be U.S. policy to maintain Washington’s partnership with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces until the militia’s status and future safety are secured.

Finally, Trump’s policies will involve expanding the Abraham Accords, a highlight of his first term, by having Israel focus on advancing normalization with Saudi Arabia. Trump has also again designated the Houthis in Yemen as a foreign terrorist organization, which President Biden had revoked.

The confrontation with China will remain a central focus of Trump’s global policy, particularly in economic and technological aspects. Trump has sought to confront China over what he says is a number of economic abuses: intellectual property theft, currency manipulation, export and other subsidies, and economic espionage. He says aggressive action is required to protect American workers and to reduce the United States’ large bilateral trade deficit.

Tensions over Taiwan will continue to threaten regional stability in East Asia. It is likely that Trump does not want to be perceived as abandoning Taiwan and U.S. commitments to the island, but at the same time, he does not want Taiwan to drag the United States into a military conflict. He has observed that “Taiwan is 9,500 miles away” from the United States, while it’s “68 miles away from China.”

Trump has long been critical of American support for Kyiv and has moved to end Russia’s war against Ukraine. His statements suggest that he is not necessarily committed to preserving Ukrainian sovereignty within its internationally recognized borders and may be open to a deal that allows Russia to maintain its presence in occupied Ukrainian territories as well as legitimizing its possession of Crimea. He has told Europe that it cannot depend indefinitely on the United States and must do more to aid Ukraine.

He also wants Ukraine to supply the United States with rare earth minerals as a form of payment for financially assisting the country’s war efforts against Russia.

The world will be a very different place over the next four years. After all, as one newspaper put it, Trump was elected to “be a wrecking ball to the Beltway elites.”