Why a Cooperative Approach to Greenland is Better Than U.S. Ownership

Why a Cooperative Approach to Greenland is Better Than U.S. Ownership

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, President Trump appeared to distance himself from the previous military threats regarding Greenland. He stated that military force was not necessary and later revealed that the United States had reached a framework agreement with NATO. Both Denmark and Greenland, alongside other European allies, have firmly opposed any attempts by the U.S. to gain ownership of the island.

Despite President Trump’s assertions, there is no need for the U.S. to own Greenland to ensure its defense. For decades, national security has been bolstered through cooperative agreements with Greenland, Denmark, and other NATO allies, tracing back to World War II.

A Historical Perspective on U.S. Presence in Greenland

During World War II, the Nazis occupied Denmark and established a military outpost in Greenland. The U.S. played a key role in ousting the Nazis and establishing military bases on the island. In 1951, the U.S. entered into an agreement with Denmark for joint defense, maintaining military facilities in Greenland throughout the Cold War. This cooperation evolved, and in 2004, the agreement was updated to provide Greenland’s government more say in matters affecting its inhabitants.

Current Military Presence and Future Considerations

In recent decades, the U.S. has collaborated with the Danish and Greenland governments to maintain a limited military presence on the island. Under existing agreements, the U.S. has exercised significant discretion in executing military operations necessary for national defense. However, citizens of Denmark and Greenland raise a profound question: If President Trump seeks to enhance the military presence in Greenland, why not do so within the framework of existing agreements?

Examining the Argument for Mineral Ownership

One of President Trump’s arguments for U.S. ownership of Greenland centers around the need to control rare earth mineral deposits located on the island. This notion is partly driven by China’s decision to impose export controls on its rare earth mineral producers, which has strained global supply chains. Interestingly, the U.S. has considerably reduced its reliance on Chinese rare earth minerals in recent years. While Greenland possesses substantial reserves of these minerals, accessing them requires advanced technology and adequate downstream facilities – both of which are currently limited.

The Case for Greenland’s Sovereignty over Mineral Resources

Greenland should maintain control over its rare earth minerals and pursue development initiatives that directly benefit its populace. The most effective way to manage these resources is through market-driven solutions rather than political maneuvers. By granting competitive leases to multinational corporations, Greenland could establish agreements that generate revenue and royalties based on favorable market conditions.

This revenue stream could be funneled into a sovereign wealth fund intended for the benefit of the citizens of Greenland. A successful example of such a fund is the Government Pension Fund of Norway, which illustrates how resource wealth can be effectively managed for the common good. Establishing a sovereign wealth fund could ensure that these revenues serve the interests of Greenland’s citizens rather than elites, special interests, or foreign entities.

U.S. Support for Greenland’s Development

The United States should actively support Greenland’s efforts to explore and develop its rare earth resources, as this aligns with broader U.S. national interests. In the long term, Greenland has the potential to become a significant partner within NATO, similar to Norway. Strengthening NATO should be a priority for President Trump, promoting policies that enhance cooperation rather than erode it. Both Greenland and Denmark remain committed to continuing this productive collaborative approach.

Engagement Over Ownership: The Path Forward

As discussions on global security and resource management evolve, it becomes increasingly clear that owning territory is not the only path to fostering alliances. Instead, engaging in partnerships and cooperative agreements can lead to shared benefits and mutual growth. The case of Greenland exemplifies the need for nuanced perspectives in international relations, prioritizing collaborative frameworks over assertive ownership claims.

The decision to utilize resources responsibly while supporting local governance reflects a progressive approach to foreign policy. This way, nations can build sustainable relationships that honor both sovereignty and shared interests.

William Owens is a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and serves on the Board of the Prosperity for US Foundation.