海角大神

Does the US need to own Greenland to be secure? History suggests not.

This week, envoys from the Trump administration are in Copenhagen, presumably arguing what President Donald Trump has been saying for years. Neither Denmark or Greenland alone, he claims, can protect the island against the Russian and Chinese threat in the Arctic.

They will likely find that, curiously, Denmark and its self-governing territory of Greenland totally agree. And that鈥檚 what is making Mr. Trump鈥檚 campaign to acquire the island so puzzling to many experts. When viewed through the lens of history, the move seems unnecessary.

Since the end of World War II, Denmark has repeatedly acknowledged that Greenland is an important piece in the larger game of global power and supported U.S. efforts to use the island for its own defense.

What began as a plea to the United States to defend the island from Nazi Germany during World War II has since expanded dramatically. A 1951 treaty essentially gives the U.S. a blank check on the island, militarily.

In that context, the Trump administration鈥檚 determination to own Greenland is 鈥渂efuddling,鈥� says Paul Bierman, author of 鈥淲hen the Ice Is Gone,鈥� a military and scientific history of Greenland. The U.S. should be able to accomplish virtually any strategic aim without taking over the island.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 know why they don鈥檛 just act to put 10,000 U.S. troops in Greenland,鈥� he adds.

Greenland has long been seen as a potentially key part of American defense.

In the latter half of the 19th century, 鈥渟ome American strategic thinkers thought that by acquiring Alaska on the west and Greenland on the east, it would put pressure on British Canada, the real prize,鈥� historian Henry William Brands Jr. recently told . U.S. Secretary of State William Seward 鈥� who led the purchase of Alaska in 1867 鈥� went so far as to commission a survey of Greenland.

In 1910, the American ambassador to Denmark including parts of the Philippines, Denmark, and Germany that would have seen control of Greenland switch to the U.S., though a formal plan never materialized. Then Denmark rejected a U.S. offer of $100 million in gold for the island in 1946.

World War II and its aftermath appeared to largely settle the disputes. During the war, small camps of German troops used Greenland to collect data on weather patterns heading toward European battlefields. U.S. troops (including dog patrols) helped roust them from the island in what鈥檚 been called the 鈥渨eather war.鈥�

Since then, the U.S. and Denmark have largely been in lockstep, sometimes to an extraordinary degree.

That included the construction in 1951 of Thule Air Base, which at one time housed nuclear weapons and is now used for U.S. missile defense (and renamed Pituffik Space Base). But it also included the audacious Project Iceworm, which would have built train lines under the ice cap to secretly ferry nuclear weapons across the island.

The 1950s-era plan was rejected, but it speaks broadly to the ambitions America has had in Greenland for decades 鈥� and Denmark鈥檚 repeated willingness to give the U.S. wide latitude.

鈥淎t one point, we had over a dozen ... military bases across the country, and that was because Greenland was pretty important in terms of defense against subs and any sort of attack from the north,鈥� says Michael Williams, an associate professor of international affairs at Syracuse University.

Many experts agree that Greenland鈥檚 strategic importance is growing yet again. The Arctic Ocean is becoming more navigable amid climate change, and Russia and China are showing clear signs of aggression. But taking over the island is legally and ethically fraught and wouldn鈥檛 give the U.S. much that it doesn鈥檛 already have.

鈥淪imply stating that the United States is very concerned about Arctic security and about Chinese and Russian actions and would like to increase our military presence there ... I think it would happen,鈥� says Dr. Williams. 鈥淒enmark has been one of 鈥� if not the 鈥� most loyal allies in NATO.鈥�