President-elect Donald Trump’s idea that the United States discover a closer connection with Greenland— up to and including that tremendous place, the largest island in the world, joining the Union — epitomizes his out-of-the-box thinking. In his first term in office, President Trump effectively used that kind of considering. It’s how he tackled for seemingly intractable issues as power supply, immigration, and Middle East harmony.
The president-elect’s Greenland advice has triggered repetitive breathlessness and pearl-clutching among newspaper site poets and leaders in Washington, D. C., and foreign capital everywhere. However, the United States ‘ move to Greenland has clear political gains, as well as solid ground in international rules. Let’s break down the global law first, then the politics.
Greenland is in a critical position in the Arctic Ocean, which is also a focal point of growing disputes over the enormous natural resources that its ocean contains. Russia is forcefully defending its position in the Arctic, a challenge that Greenland would face in the wake of the United States.
No least of all, rare earth metals are abundant in Greenland itself, which is rich in other critical resources. Because these are essential to a range of solutions essential to British national security, China wants to corner the market for rare earth aluminum. With unique earth metal, Greenland could be of assistance.
Greenland’s much Atlantic shores, east and west, are furthermore strategically important, opposite as they are to the transport routes from Europe to America. Greenland’s political significance will only increase if global warming is actually occurring, in part because it controls the eastern portion of the Northwest Passage, the Arctic road that connects the Atlantic and the Pacific and, if its waters become less icy, would become one of the world’s principal sea contact points.
How does worldwide law compare? Isn’t it against the law to take another government’s place? Countries have mostly come to accept that place does not transfer between impartial nation-states unless they veto it since World War II. This is a good structure. It eliminates one of the biggest factors in conflict.
Some wars broke out when one royal attempted to take a place against the desires of the nation-state that owned it for hundreds of years before countries believed that military conquest was a legal way to gain place from other countries. The biggest benefit to international peace and stability in modern times was probably the broader end to the forced annexation of territory by independent nation-states. It would be foolish to go back to the old days of country-against-country area capture by military power.
However, nations have always accepted the king may sublicense a place. This used to refer to a deal reached between princes and other rulers. Now, it also means the acceptance of the citizens of the country.
Ironically, the United Nations, of all organizations, accepts that certain territories have a large right to choose their own potential. Greenland, for a time, was expressly one of those provinces. From 1946 to 1954, Greenland was a non-self-governing country for purposes of Chapter XI of the UN Charter. Denmark discontinued Greenland’s official UN standing in 1954, in piece out of problems over UN meddling in the country.
But, from 1979 forward, Denmark has recognized under its own local laws that Greenland is self-governing, and in 2009 Denmark made clear that Greenland has the right to declare independence through a vote, if its people choose to keep one. Most international attorneys have known for more than 50 years that a right of that kind has many options for a place like Greenland, and the UN has also accepted this. Greenland’s people may choose to keep the status quo. They may choose independence. They also have the right to choose association with, or even union in, another nation-state. A clear path opens for Greenland to reclaim its sovereignty with the United States under this third option, if both Greenland and the United States so desire.
What kind of relationship would exist? Again, it would be for Greenland and the United States to negotiate. Evidence demonstrates that sovereign countries, including the United States, may occupy territories as a result of a number of constitutional agreements. A number of territories are part of the United States without being states of the United States — Guam, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U. S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico in particular. Other creative relationships are possible — for example, the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau are independent nation-states ( and UN Member States ) in Free Association with the United States. Free Association is a close and deep relationship, which, if designed and led properly, assures the vital security interests of both parties. Greenland and the United States might take into account a wide range of potential agreements.
In order for a dialogue to begin, President Trump should ideally ask for a fresh perspective on our relationship with Greenland because a closer relationship would have a significant impact on American security. Additionally, Greenland’s integration into the United States has established precedents in both our own constitutional system and international law.
President Trump has consistently confounded the political elite with bold ideas that work, both in Washington, D.C., and in foreign capitals. With Greenland, he is doing it once again — with great possibilities ahead.
Thomas D. Grant is an academic at the University of Cambridge and a practicing international law attorney. He served in the first Trump administration, 2019-2021, as Senior Advisor for Strategic Planning under the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. The opinions expressed in this article are his alone, and they do not necessarily reflect those of the Trump Transition or any other group or person.
