Posted on 01/10/2025 6:26:19 AM PST by Red Badger
Although America has a history of taking a commercial approach to international relations, purchases are rarely made without controversy. When Thomas Jefferson bought Louisiana in 1803, doubling the size of the country, he had to set aside his zest for constitutional constructivism, which would have ruled out such bold federal action. Sixty-four years later, when William Seward, then secretary of state, purchased Alaska from Russia for $7.2m ($162m today), the move was dubbed “Seward’s folly”. Today the Alaska deal is seen as a masterstroke and the Louisiana purchase the greatest achievement of one of America’s greatest presidents. In hindsight, both look extraordinarily good value.
History will not be as kind to Donald Trump if he gets Greenland from Denmark under duress. On January 7th the president-elect declined to rule out using military might or economic warfare in his pursuit of Greenland (and of the Panama Canal). America will lose friends if it bullies one into ceding territory. But Mr Trump’s provocations are also foolish because an agreement to buy Greenland, made freely and in good will, could indeed be another deal-of-the-century. Such a deal would increase America’s security, and perhaps that of its NATO allies, too. Autocrats would be dispirited. And a purchase could also benefit the inhabitants of the island, who must—and surely would—have the final say.
What, then, is Greenland worth? One starting point is the island’s annual GDP. At last count, in 2021, it was $3bn, or a seven-thousandth of America’s. Only 57,000 people live in Greenland, despite the fact it is bigger than any American state. Much of the territory’s output is the work of some 43% of the labour force employed by the state (against 15% in America). Over half the government’s bills are paid by Denmark, which gives the territory $500m a year. The biggest private industry is fishing. Removing the public sector, assuming Greenland’s long-run growth continues and that America’s federal government would receive 16% of GDP in tax (the national average), as well as discounting using America’s 30-year Treasury yield, produces a valuation of $50bn. That is about a twentieth of America’s annual defence spending.
Yet Mr Trump covets Greenland for its strategic and economic potential, rather than its puny output. The island sits between America and Russia in a part of the world that is becoming more navigable as Arctic ice melts. Although America’s Pituffik Space Force Base on the territory’s north-west coast already provides the military with missile-warning sensors, an American Greenland might better monitor the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) gap, a strip of the Atlantic ocean that is the access route for Russian submarines to America’s east coast, and to the North Atlantic.
On top of this, Greenland’s resource wealth is immense. It has known reserves of 43 of the 50 minerals deemed “critical” by America’s government, including probably the largest deposits of rare earths outside China. These are crucial to military kit and green-energy equipment. Wells off Greenland’s coast could yield 52bn barrels of oil, about 3% of the world’s proven reserves, according to an estimate in 2008 by the US Geological Survey. Greenland’s resources have gone relatively unexploited owing to the difficulty of operating in the territory’s harsh, remote areas. Four-fifths of the island is covered by ice. There are not even roads linking settlements. And the government banned oil exploration in 2021. But as the climate warms, the minerals become both more accessible and more valuable. Already, perhaps the greatest resource rush ever seen, on a per-person basis, is under way. Firms are drilling at around 170 sites, up from 12 a decade ago.
From whom could the island be bought? In 2009 Denmark all but granted Greenland the right to declare independence should its people choose in a referendum. The island’s nationalist government would very much like to exercise that right. At the same time Denmark granted the territory control of its own natural resources (though as its revenues go up, its block grant from Denmark goes down). Any purchase, therefore, should not be from Denmark, which really would be colonialist, but from the islanders themselves. If America offered merely our crude valuation of the flow of future taxes, it would amount to nearly $1m per inhabitant. Given the territory’s riches and importance, America could probably make every Greenlander a multimillionaire and still benefit enormously from the purchase.
Cold feet
Romantics and nationalists would doubtless call such an arrangement grubby. Couldn’t the island go it alone? After all, the 380,000 citizens of Iceland manage well enough. Greenland could host more American military bases at the same time as exploiting its natural resources on its own terms. Why abandon your identity and subject yourself to political control from Washington? But natural-resource bonanzas bring risks, too. One is corruption that prevents the benefits from being divided fairly. It is unclear whether 57,000 people can govern effectively in the presence of an immense windfall: imagine an English town council being given Saudi Arabia’s oilfields. Extracting minerals means mass immigrant labour. National security is no longer just about the risk of invasion but also forestalling hybrid warfare, from sabotage to propaganda on TikTok. Selling to America up front would bring the full might of America’s administrative and security apparatus to the territory, while guaranteeing—if your columnist’s advice was followed—an equal distribution of the windfall.
Respecting Greenland’s right to self-determination means respecting its citizens’ right to consider such an offer, which could be put to a referendum. For the choice to be free, Mr Trump would have to retract his threat of force. He should do so—and then try putting some red meat in front of the polar bear. ■
Even Fetterman sees it as an idea that has merit.
Can you imagine if he pulls this off? It will be Hugh!
Of course the liberals will IMMEDIATELY move to shut the whole,nation off from deposite and resource exploration- but for 4 years, it will be an economic boon to the nation. One of the smartest I vestments in a long long while. Hopefully he can get the Panama Canal back too! We had friends who worked and lived there on the canal. The wife ended up with denge fever- only person I’ve ever met to have that.
He’s no dummy- he’s just partially blinded by liberalism- he knows a great deal when he sees it- he I guess is actuslly a pretty smart dude with degrees fro prestigious college? I didn’t have much use for h8mm at first, and felt he was near brain deficient after the stroke, but more and more I am “hopefull” (cautiously so) that he will be a thorn in the liberals side, and be reasonable enough to at least work with republicans at times
The fact the Europe is upset by this idea—means it really would be a good deal for us!
Imagine if after we purchase it, we immediately start shipping in South Americans, Africans and Middle Easterners.
I wonder if people would feel bad for the native population of Greenland when the newcomers start to change the culture and quality of life in Greenland?
I wonder if those same people would reflect on the current situation in America and apply the same standard?
Actually, I’m certain they wouldn’t.
OAN network actually sent reporters there to talk to local residents. Most of them expressed the idea that meaningful jobs and royalties from resource development beat occasional government handouts from Denmark.
That is exactly why the Greenlanders shouldn’t vote to join the US.
Illegal aliens and even America’s own predator class must be salivating at another high-trust society being ripe for the picking if they got free reign to move there without immigration restrictions.
Greenland is a monoculture. 93% of it’s population are PRACTICING Christians. There is virtually no crime. There is no LGBTQIA+ culture.
If they become part of America, within one generation they will be become multicultural, crime will double, church attendance will crumble and gay guys in dresses will read books to their children.
Yep, I hate to say it but just as Muslim countries are not fit to have free access to western countries because they are culturally incompatible and low trust.
We as westerners are not fit to have free access to high-trust countries like South Korea, Japan, Greenland, Iceland etc.
We would ruin them because we are culturally degenerate compared to them same as the Muslim world is to us.
This whole "declined to rule out the military" line has got to stop. That was a "gotcha" question asked by reporters to put military aggression into President Trump's mouth knowing that he has a (rightly so) long-standing history of not commenting on military strategies.
Does anybody seriously think that the United States wouldn't have eventually taken Louisiana if Jefferson hadn't negotiated the purchase? Were there reporters asking Jefferson if he would rule out the use of force to take Louisiana just so they could smear him as a warmonger in the press?
-PJ
It’s almost as if the millennia old tradition of having “nations” as opposed to “states” was the default, most biblically sound and most appropriate way to organize into groups.
But what do I know...?
Serious question, who gets paid? Denmark? The inhabitants of Greenland? A Trillion dollars between 54,000 residents makes for that many new $18+ billionaires. Talk about a windfall and fortunate place of birth!
Yes, Denmark. You pay the Dane geld you never get rid of the Dane............
Yes, I read the article. I hardly think $50 billion in these days will come close to the price.
I figure Denmark somehow gets paid a lot not to raise a ruckus and the people of Greenland get some more than token payment to make it / let it happen.
They should set up a fund like Alaska has. They would all benefit.............
Trump never threatened to use force.
I hate the media word games.
Why spend the money on an outright purchase. Rather, help the citizens of Greenland declare independence from Denmark. Then incentivize the independent Greenland to become a U.S. territory.
That’s what we did in Panama!............
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.