Greenland at the Crossroads: Why U.S. Leadership is Crucial

posted by Yassin Fawaz at American Thinker 

In the Arctic’s icy waters, a strategic gem lies in the hands of a distant nation—one that is struggling to keep it afloat, while another stands ready to offer the support it desperately needs. Greenland, often overlooked on the global stage, holds immense strategic value far beyond its seeming geographic isolation. For nearly a century, its security and defense have been primarily handled by the United States, not Denmark—its colonial ruler for centuries.

As tensions rise in the Arctic and geopolitical dynamics shift, it’s time to consider a future where Greenland is no longer a dependency of Denmark but is, instead, a key strategic asset under U.S. sovereignty. This piece explores why transferring Greenland’s sovereignty to the United States would benefit Greenland, Denmark, and the U.S., creating a unique win-win-win situation for all parties involved.

The Strategic Importance of Greenland

Greenland’s location at the crossroads of the Arctic and North Atlantic means that, in the modern ear, it has always been strategically vital. During World War II, the United States recognized the island’s importance and occupied it on behalf of Denmark, a neutral nation at the time.

This set the stage for a deep, enduring American military presence that continues to this day. The Thule Air Base, constructed in 1951 under the Greenland Defense Agreement, is a linchpin of U.S. Arctic defense. It allows Washington to monitor air traffic and early-warning radar across the northern hemisphere, serving as a critical part of America’s nuclear defense system.

During the Cold War, Greenland played a central role in monitoring Soviet activity in the Arctic. The establishment of Thule Air Base allowed the U.S. to deploy early-warning radar systems that were essential for detecting potential Soviet missile launches. The base remains a key piece in America’s global defense infrastructure, symbolizing the long-standing military cooperation between Greenland and the U.S. Furthermore, as Russia continues to assert its presence in the Arctic, maintaining this strategic asset has never been more critical.

Today, as the Arctic region becomes increasingly important in global geopolitics—thanks to melting ice and growing competition for resources—the U.S. has more to gain from controlling Greenland than does Denmark. Greenland’s proximity to Russia and its vast mineral resources, including rare-earth elements, make it an asset in the ongoing competition for Arctic dominance. For the U.S., it’s a matter of national security.

Moreover, Greenland’s proximity to the newly opening Arctic trade routes means that the island could become even more pivotal as international shipping and resource extraction increase in the region. America’s military and economic interests in Greenland are aligned with its broader geopolitical goals in the Arctic—a region that will only grow in strategic importance as climate change accelerates and global competition intensifies.

Denmark’s Limited Stake in Greenland

While many Danes feel a cultural and historical attachment to Greenland, the reality is that the island has been more of a burden than a boon. Greenland is more than 2,000 miles away from Denmark, making it an administrative and logistical challenge for Copenhagen to manage. The Danish government has struggled to make Greenland economically viable. Despite receiving billions in subsidies, Greenland’s economy remains dependent on Denmark, with little sign of self-sufficiency in the near future.

The cold, harsh climate, remote location, and lack of infrastructure mean that developing Greenland’s economy is a gargantuan task, one that Denmark simply cannot afford. A recent analysis estimated that it would cost Denmark $17 billion to bring Greenland’s economy to a sustainable level—an amount that far exceeds the Danish budget. By contrast, the U.S. has the resources to invest in Greenland’s future and can do so without straining its finances.

Greenland’s resource wealth remains largely untapped, but the infrastructure needed to unlock these assets is prohibitively expensive for Denmark. The island holds valuable minerals like rare-earth elements, which are increasingly crucial for global technology industries. Developing a sustainable mining sector could dramatically boost Greenland’s economy, but without substantial investment in transportation, infrastructure, and technology, these resources will remain out of reach. The U.S., with its vast technological and financial resources, is better equipped to bridge this gap, providing the funding and expertise needed to fully exploit Greenland’s natural wealth.

In 1951, when Denmark signed the Greenland Defense Agreement, it allowed U.S. forces almost totally free access to the island’s territory. This agreement has enabled the U.S. to maintain a military presence on Greenland, but it has never equated to sovereignty, nor has it been seen as an economically viable long-term solution for the island. For Denmark, relinquishing control of Greenland would free up resources to focus on its own priorities and allow Greenland to develop in ways that Copenhagen is incapable of supporting.

Greenland’s Quest for Self-Determination

The people of Greenland have long sought greater autonomy. In 1979, Denmark granted the island home rule, and in 2009, Greenland gained further autonomy with the Self-Government Act. While these steps have empowered Greenlanders politically, they have not led to true self-sufficiency. Despite having its own parliament, the island still relies heavily on Denmark for financial support and defense.

The notion of self-determination is a powerful one, and Greenlanders deserve the opportunity to make their own decisions about their future. But self-determination is not just about political independence—it’s also about economic independence. Greenland’s vast natural resources, from minerals to fisheries, could provide the foundation for a prosperous future, but only if the island receives the support necessary to develop these industries. The U.S. can offer that support, both financially and logistically, in a way that Denmark simply cannot.

A transfer of sovereignty to the U.S. would give Greenlanders the autonomy they seek while ensuring the island’s long-term economic viability. With American investment, Greenland could become a prosperous, self-sustaining entity within a broader American geopolitical framework. Unlike Denmark, which lacks the resources to sustain such an effort, the U.S. could offer substantial financial support and the infrastructure necessary to jumpstart Greenland’s development. This would allow Greenland to manage its own destiny while remaining strategically secure in the face of international competition.

The U.S. Path Forward

For the United States, the argument for absorbing Greenland is straightforward. The island is critical to American security and its strategic position in the Arctic. The U.S. has long treated Greenland as a de facto protectorate, so why not formalize that relationship? The move would strengthen U.S. influence in the Arctic and enhance its ability to respond to emerging threats from Russia, China, and other global powers.

While the idea of transferring sovereignty over Greenland may seem radical, it is not without precedent. The U.S. has historically annexed territories for strategic reasons—Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico—and in each case, American sovereignty has provided those territories with greater security, investment, and economic opportunities. Greenland is no different.

Moreover, this move would benefit Denmark by relieving it of the financial and military burden of supporting Greenland, allowing Copenhagen to focus on issues closer to home. For the U.S., it would secure a critical piece of Arctic real estate and further cement its position as the dominant power in the region. By taking control of Greenland, America would strengthen its military presence in the Arctic, solidify its geopolitical position against competing powers, and better protect its national security interests.

As global competition intensifies in the Arctic, with Russia and China increasingly seeking influence in the region, American control over Greenland would send a clear message about the U.S.’s commitment to defending its interests in the North. China’s growing interest in Arctic shipping routes, as well as its investment in Arctic resources, is a direct challenge to U.S. dominance in the region. Securing Greenland under U.S. sovereignty would enhance America’s ability to assert its leadership in the Arctic Council and ensure that the region remains open for international trade under a rules-based order.

Conclusion

Greenland’s future is at a crossroads. The island’s vast resources and strategic location have long made it a prized asset, but under Denmark’s stewardship, it has struggled to achieve self-sufficiency. A transfer of sovereignty to the United States would not only benefit Greenland’s people by offering them the economic opportunities and security they need but also strengthen America’s position in the Arctic and relieve Denmark of an expensive responsibility.

This is not a zero-sum game but a win-win-win scenario, where all parties—Greenland, the United States, and Denmark—stand to gain. The time has come to move beyond old colonial legacies and embrace a future where Greenland is empowered to control its own destiny while the U.S. provides the resources and security to ensure its prosperity. A bold new chapter for Greenland awaits, one that benefits its people, secures the Arctic, and strengthens the global balance of power.