George Rebane

The 57,000 residents of Greenland live and work in a toy jurisdiction with a miniscule economy, the private sector of which is based overwhelmingly on fishing and seafood exports accounting for approximately 37% of their $3.3B GDP.  The lion’s share (67%) of their GDP is dominated by government which employs 43% of the workforce.  Their economy is heavily subsidized by Denmark (currently about $1.2B annually) through regular block grants, “extra investments”, along with funding its defense, courts, healthcare, police, and infrastructure.

In spite of their perpetual dependence on outside resources, the Greenlanders maintain a strong sense of independence and sovereignty.  Their hope is to develop a mining industry which will make them financially independent.  Achieving this will require a massive amount of foreign investment which both the US and China are eager to underwrite.  But this is not forthcoming under the current world order.

Since WW2 the US has always seen Greenland as part of its outer defense perimeter.  And therein lies the rub given our relations with Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.  The island’s strategic location under the path of potential incoming ICBMs, control of Arctic commerce, and its ability to supply the west with strategically important minerals makes America’s control of Greenland a matter of international security.  We don’t want our enemies to have anything to do with Greenland and its surrounding waters.

Toward this objective, it should be an easy matter to have the US assume the defense of the island by expanding its existing military bases and commercial presence.  Along with that we should be welcomed by both the Greenlanders and Danes with the grant of certain mining and processing rights under a profit-sharing agreement.  This would create a stable jurisdictional environment which would attract investment, and significantly expand Greenland’s economy to the point where it could reasonably achieve its desired independence from Denmark.  Under such an agreement the US would retain control of defense and extraction of natural resources in perpetuum without having to annex Greenland.  The nature of Greenland’s sovereignty would be defined by a long-term treaty much as what we have had with Panama in our control of its strategically important Canal Zone.

The matter of Greenland’s sovereignty is somewhat moot when we consider its practical implications.  We recall that sovereignty means a state has the ultimate, independent authority to govern itself, control its territory, make laws, and manage internal affairs without external interference.  Sovereignty comes in two flavors – intrinsic and derived.  An intrinsically sovereign state has the power to secure its territory against foreign invasion or interference in its international relations with allies.  Intrinsically sovereign states are usually hegemons, at least in their regional affairs.

States with derived sovereignty are enabled through their relations or alliances with a sufficiently powerful intrinsically sovereign state.  In this sense we see that all post-war European countries have enjoyed derived sovereignty through their membership in the community of western democratic nations under the umbrella of American hegemony.  Were it not for America’s might, the USSR would have brought all of Europe under its rule.  Today this world order has continued to contain Russia after the Soviet Union’s collapse.

Within such a framework, Greenland and Denmark should consider their options for continued national sovereignty.  It is through the grace of America’s enlightened self-interest that they have remained free and bountiful.  And to serve our mutual interests they should do all they can to continue currying our favor as a benevolent friend and ally that has no desire to impact their respective cultures, but only to bring security and wealth to a region has lain fallow for too long.