One might wonder why a large, icy island in the Arctic takes up a large part of national discourse and intrigues our government to the point of annexation. The answer would appear in a flash: “If we don’t have it, China or Russia will!”
Hypotheticals aside, the recent Greenland deal has shed a great deal of light upon the impetus behind President Trump’s foreign policy, which begs our concern as American citizens. In the face of very real and rampant concerns, the rhetoric surrounding this misnamed isle gives great cause for pause.
Trump recently signed a deal with the kingdom of Denmark granting additional concessions to the U.S., such as a guaranteed permanent military presence on the island — even if the island is granted independence — and bans countries outside the NATO alliance from building bases or making significant economic investments without U.S approval. Trump followed up the announcement with another, and said that two new military bases will be built in the region.
Such benefits are a notable escalation, yet not far removed from similar benefits granted during WWII, when Denmark entrusted the defense of the island to the U.S., alongside the privilege of establishing military bases such as those still present across the globe.
The most telling part of this whole affair is what Trump tells the American people and the world. In the White House Newsletter, the headline appears as follows: “A Dream Come True: President Trump Secures Permanent U.S. Security Control Over Greenland at ZERO Cost.”
It is abundantly clear that Trump’s foreign policy is centered on two principles: reducing costs and “increasing security,” across the globe, the latter of which featured greatly in his recent address to the UN in Turkey. While it is an established principle of our world that security measures must be gained at great expense, the question of security strikes at the very root of U.S. foreign policy.
The U.S., as a nation, is obligated to protect its citizens and their common good, which necessitates an effective military, a level of secrecy in government affairs, and reliable sources of income in the form of dues and taxes. While friction between countries must perforce emerge because of such measures, these in themselves do not in any way impinge upon another country’s affairs, sovereignty or execution such that they themselves are compromised.
Trump’s policy is quite different, positioning Greenland as a tributary to the United States, and establishing concrete levers through which the U.S. can shift Greenland’s policy. These measures emulate the Roosevelt Corollary in their veiled assertions of force to expand and enforce spheres of influence.
This, however, must still be put in context: the U.S. has entered another long-time conflict in the Middle East, has failed to mediate the Ukraine War and is feeling the pinch of self-imposed economic isolation. The world has seen America stumble into her “golden age,” and Trump seems to be using a golden baton to hammer home America’s strength.
This new Greenland deal will not only reinforce the U.S. position in the North Atlantic theatre, but also America’s image on the world stage as a protectorate of lesser powers such as Greenland.
Trump’s dedication to securing the world through strength is admirable, and his desire for peace is one we, as Americans, all share. However, his blunt measures, coupled with acrid rhetoric, transgress the bounds of Monroe’s doctrine, unfairly position the U.S. over Greenland’s people and far exceed the proper bounds of state conduct.
As it stands, the U.S. is trying to assert its place in a very confused world, as rivals stir the political pot. Our government should stop waving its stick and start considering whether its soul and sense are of good quality.