2 May 2025

Annexing Greenland: Six Questions

Barry Scott Zellen

Question 1: Could America Rule Greenland?

Yes. What was floated in 2019 as an out-of-the-box Presidential policy idea but not pursued (due in part to competing demands of presidential attention, such as ending the war in Afghanistan and battling the Covid-19 pandemic), has reemerged in Trump 2.0 as part of a grand strategy to reframe American defense and security through a hemispheric, “America First” lens that departs from over 75 years of a trans-Atlantic, alliance-centric security concept. This now places the “Greenland purchase” concept at the top, and not periphery, of American defense, security, and foreign policy from the start of the new administration. But it does not necessarily mean that the U.S. would become the formal sovereign, or official leader, over Greenland, even if the policy is presently perceived and described that way. Much depends on the response by Greenland and Denmark, as well as the NATO alliance, and in addition of Canada, if a Greenland expansion/annexation is accompanied by an American expansion to/annexation of part or all of Canada.

Could America become the leader of, and sovereign power ruling over, Greenland at the end of the day? Yes. And could Greenland become a 51st state, or a new island territory comparable to our island territories in the Caribbean and Pacific? Yes. Statehood usually follows a period of political and economic maturation and modernization as a territory, as we saw with Alaska and Hawaii. But sometimes it leads to a permanent territorial status, federally governed but without full state powers (as we see in Guam, Samoa, etc.). In other cases, it leads to quasi-independence under a Compact of Free Association (COFA), as we see in Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. (The COFA structure is not entirely unlike what Greenland has incrementally achieved through Home-Rule (1979) and later Self Rule (2009) with Denmark, though presumably Greenland would gain even more power, and more investment and financial support, to switch from Copenhagen to Washington.)

No comments: