By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to President Trump’s consideration of acquiring Greenland, Danish and Greenlandic envoys have engaged in a robust campaign to dissuade U.S. lawmakers and administration officials. They have been holding meetings with key figures to voice their concerns. These efforts come after Trump expressed a desire for ownership of the strategic Arctic island, prompting pushback from some lawmakers and international leaders. The envoys have emphasized the importance of Greenland’s self-determination and the existing defense agreements.
Read the original article here
Denmark, Greenland envoys met with White House officials over Trump’s call for a ‘takeover’, and the whole situation must have been seriously awkward. Can you imagine the tension in that room? The US, under Trump, casually floated the idea of buying Greenland, a move that sent shockwaves through international diplomacy. You have to wonder, what exactly did the US offer? And what was the angle? Was this a serious negotiation, or just a power play? It’s hard to say. But the fact that a meeting even happened is telling.
The sheer audacity of the suggestion is something else to unpack. The basic premise, if you boil it down, is that the US, as the strongest member of NATO, could just *take* Greenland and its resources. The logic just crumbles under scrutiny. Using power and strength to essentially seize land and its resources just doesn’t sit right with the core principles of international law or any semblance of fair play. It brings up unsettling questions, like, if the US can do this with Greenland, where does it end? Could they then turn their sights on Ireland, or Norway’s oil fields, and justify it the same way? The ramifications are quite unsettling.
Now, Denmark, a long-standing US ally, is caught in the middle. They’re basically being asked to consider selling off a piece of their territory. The US has a history of making deals, as seen with the purchase of the US Virgin Islands. However, that history also involves honoring agreements, like recognizing Denmark’s claims to Greenland back in 1916. Given this history, why should Denmark trust the US? Trump’s actions create understandable distrust.
The expectations for this meeting weren’t probably that simple. Diplomacy is a delicate dance, and with Trump, it gets even more complicated. The most likely scenario, according to some assessments, is that Denmark would offer something in exchange for the US to back off the annexation talk. It could be expanded military bases in Greenland or some agreements for US companies to explore the area’s minerals. The reality is that this could easily be another instance of Trump grandstanding.
What would be truly infuriating is if Trump then tried to paint whatever compromise they made as some sort of major victory, crowing about his deal-making prowess. Of course, the damage to the US’s reputation and ability to work with other nations in the future would be completely ignored by some. This would be a perfect example of short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability and cooperation. The damage to the US’s reputation would be significant.
Some believe the best approach for Denmark would be to politely decline, but other suggestions include offering up some sort of an agreement to delay the process. There are so many options, but the key is not to concede to the US’s demands. It’s a sad state of affairs when international relations are seemingly reduced to the threat of force. There’s a general sense that the US, under this administration, has become somewhat untrustworthy.
It’s crucial to remember the US already has a defense agreement and multiple bases in Greenland. Negotiating the expansion of bases and economic development would have been a more reasonable route. But, Trump seems to operate on a zero-sum mentality: if anyone else benefits from a deal, then he views it as a loss. It is an extremely shortsighted approach.
One thing is for certain: The US has no rightful claim to Greenland. The US’s only claim was renounced in 1916. The US is now essentially asking to renegotiate a contract, and that’s not how things are supposed to work. This behavior would be met with legal action if it were an individual, but because it’s a nation, it’s somehow acceptable, because historically, that’s the way it’s been. This attitude damages the U.S.’s standing on the international stage.
The bottom line is that Greenland isn’t for sale. It’s a question of national sovereignty and the US’s reputation, which is already taking a beating.