February Issue
Téa Breedon
February
President Trump’s recent inauguration has sparked a series of policy shifts, driving changes in American conduct on a global stage. Among the most notable of these changes is Trump’s declaration of pursuing expansion to Greenland, echoing his past calls for American annexation of the Arctic territory. Trump’s interest in Greenland is largely tied to its potential for strengthening U.S. military presence in the Arctic, thereby enhancing its surveillance of adversaries to the east and safeguarding U.S. national security. Similarly, the Jinping administration attempted multiple Greenland grabs between 2016 and 2018, aiming to take control of the country for economic purposes. Rich with rare minerals yet sparse in population, Greenland serves as the perfect base for Chinese ambitions in the Arctic. Despite China being one of Greenland’s largest trading partners, accounting for all of Greenland’s seafood, ice and water exports, the nation responded with caution, wary of the risk of debt traps placed by entering into major material infrastructure deals with China. Together, these two global actors share an interest in territorial expansion to Greenland, identifying such ambitions as central to their nation’s success.
In 2016, General Nice Resources—a Hong Kong-based company—made attempts to acquire a decommissioned Danish naval base, but Copenhagen rejected the bid due to concerns about jeopardizing the country’s relationship with the United States. China made a second pass at the region in 2018, offering to invest in Greenland’s airport infrastructure by modernizing its runways. Like the first, this attempt was blocked by Copenhagen, but it represents growing efforts to increase Chinese influence in the region. Aside from its rich resource bank, Greenland is appealing to China for its value to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—Beijing’s trade strategy aimed at connecting China to Asia, Africa and Europe via land and maritime networks. Establishing influence in Greenland would enhance Chinese access to Arctic shipping routes, explaining why Greenland has emerged as a popular target for geographical expansion.
In 2019, Trump advanced a proposal for the U.S. to acquire Greenland, stemming from concerns about U.S. national security. Due to Greenland’s limited naval defenses and strategic location near the U.S., the USSR frequently used the island’s surrounding waters as a base for Soviet nuclear submarines, allowing them to monitor the U.S. and its NATO allies during the Cold War. Concerned about China adopting a similar strategy to that used by the Soviet Union in the 20th century, Trump issued a proposal for American annexation of the island. In addition to its role in deflecting Chinese expansion and influence, Greenland is of strategic significance to the U.S. for its relative distance from European conflicts and its value as a pitstop for aircraft refueling and military reconnaissance. In short, Greenland’s geographical position acts both as a buffer against global conflict and a vantage point for monitoring international activity.
Despite the potential benefits of successfully acquiring Greenland, could the competition for control prove problematic for both nations? Might American annexation of the Arctic territory trigger Chinese attempts to challenge U.S. influence? Lessons learned from the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbour shine light on these inquiries, pointing to the risks of over-reliance on the strategic significance of territorially-removed states. The Hawaiian naval base—most notable for its distance from adversaries and, thus, its potential for safeguarding the U.S. from international threats—suffered surprise Japanese military attacks in December 1941, forcing the U.S. into WWII in the following weeks. These attacks ended the debate over whether the U.S. should risk intervention in both the Pacific and European quarters of WWII, illustrating the dangers of over-dependence on the geographical advantage of a territorially-removed region such as Pearl Harbour. In this respect, assuming immunity to attacks based solely on geographic advantages is naive, potentially leaving a nation unprepared for international threats. Thus, should his plans come to fruition, Trump’s annexation of Greenland might provoke Chinese counterbalancing efforts, leaving the U.S. unprepared for a power struggle over the territory.
The risk of an inter-state power struggle over Greenland is heightened by China’s condition as a declining power, making the 2020s rife with potential for conflict. China’s former One-Child policy—spanning from 1979–2015—initially intended to provide economic stimulus by creating a generation of unencumbered parents has recently led to a shrinking workforce and demographic decline. Consequently, the country is likely to find means to climb out of such decline—including territorial expansion to Greenland. In this sense, despite the common assumption that China is a global superpower, its current trend of economic downturn suggests a more precarious position that could fuel ambitions in—or competition over—Greenland.
Greenland has become a focal point of strategic competition between the U.S. and China, with a mutual struggle risking triggering a new arena for great power rivalry. The historical lessons of overestimating geographic security, as seen by Pearl Harbour, highlight the potential dangers of relying on territorial distance to ensure national security. As China grapples with economic challenges and the U.S. seeks to reinforce its Arctic presence, it has become clear that Greenland could play a crucial role in shaping the future of international dynamics.
Photo credits: New York National Guard, 2016