CNA Explains: Why does Trump want Greenland and could he really take over the island?

In the early months of his return to the White House, US President Donald Trump repeatedly said he wants to take control of Greenland - and has not ruled out the use of military force to achieve this goal.

The issue had largely drifted out of headlines in recent months, but the US strike in Venezuela has put it back in the spotlight. 

"We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it," Trump said Sunday (Jan 4).

In response, Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen warned Trump to back off and said the island is open to dialogue through proper channels and with respect for international law.

WHY DOES TRUMP WANT GREENLAND?

Greenland, the world’s biggest island, is a self-ruling territory of Denmark.

It sits at a strategic location straddling the North Atlantic and the Arctic. The region’s vast stores of critical minerals and fossil fuels are coveted by the US and its strategic rivals China and Russia.

Greenland also has untapped rare earth minerals and could be a vital player as the polar ice melts and new shipping routes emerge.

But Trump has pushed back on the notion that Greenland’s energy or minerals are fuelling his interest, saying the US has plenty of resources. 

Instead, he argues that the island is necessary for US national security. 

“We do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defence,” Trump said in a telephone interview with The Atlantic. 

Greenland's strategic location between Europe and North America makes it a critical site for the US ballistic missile defence system. It is also on the shortest route for missiles between Russia and the US. 

The island of 57,000 people is already home to the US’ northernmost air base and a radar station that’s used for detecting missile threats and monitoring space.

The Pituffik Space Base was built following a 1951 defence agreement between Denmark and the US. It supports missile warning, missile defence and space surveillance operations for the US and NATO.

COULD TRUMP SEIZE GREENLAND?

Militarily, there is little that could stop the US from attempting to seize Greenland.

Politically and legally, however, the consequences would be “era-defining”, said Assistant Professor William James from the S Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS).

Although Greenland is not an independent member of NATO, it is covered by Denmark's membership of the Western military alliance, of which the US is also a member.

Any use of force would pit the NATO allies against one another. 

"If the US decides to military attack another NATO country, then everything would stop - that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security," Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said.

She added that the US already has extensive military access to Greenland under existing agreements. 

“I need to say this very directly to the US,” Frederiksen said in a statement on Sunday. “The US has no right to annex any of the three countries of the Kingdom of Denmark.”

While the Trump administration has long blamed Venezuela’s government for stoking regional instability and fuelling drug trafficking, neither Greenland nor Denmark presents a threat to US security. 

ARE THERE OTHER OPTIONS FOR TRUMP?

Associate Professor Reuben Wong of the National University of Singapore said it would be hard to imagine the US Congress agreeing to military action or intervention in Greenland.

"A more likely option is that Greenland or Denmark will be pressured to make concessions to US interests (with regard to) the island’s rare earth and oil resources," he told CNA.

RSIS' Dr James said that any attempt by the US to acquire Greenland would "almost certainly" follow a period of coercive diplomacy and some form of financial arrangement.

"Much of US territory was historically gained through purchase (eg, the Louisiana purchase from France; Alaska from Russia), and Trump appears to assume that everyone and everything has a price," he said. 

Buying Greenland is an option, according to a senior US official who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, and so is forming a Compact of Free Association (COFA) with the territory. 

COFA refers to international agreements between the US and three sovereign Pacific Island nations to establish a relationship where the US provides economic aid and defence in exchange for strategic military access.

"Diplomacy is always the president’s first option with anything, and dealmaking. He loves deals. So if a good deal can be struck to acquire Greenland, that would definitely ‌be his first instinct," the official said. 

As things stand, however, both Denmark and Greenland show little interest in such deals, said Dr James. 

"It is also worth remembering that Greenland exercises extensive self-government. Any legal transfer would require the consent of Greenlanders as well as Danes," he added.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THE US TAKES GREENLAND?

An attempt by the US to seize Greenland by force would be "catastrophic" for the transatlantic relationship, Dr James warned. 

"An American invasion of territory belonging to Denmark - a European state, a fellow NATO member, and an ally that lost a disproportionately high number of troops in US-led wars in the Greater Middle East - would be unprecedented," he told CNA.

"Such an invasion would paralyse the transatlantic alliance and undermine deterrence at a time when war is already raging in Ukraine. It is difficult to imagine NATO emerging intact from a breach of trust on that level," he added. 

"Even America's closest allies in Europe, such as the United Kingdom and Poland, could not simply 'keep calm and carry on.'" 

An outright invasion, therefore, remains "highly unlikely", said Dr James. 

European leaders have rallied around Greenland in the wake of Trump’s remarks, saying only Greenland and Denmark could decide the territory’s future. 

Dr James noted that a negotiated purchase of the island would be less dramatic, but if accompanied by overt coercion, would still damage trust.

“Whether through force or coercive 'legal' means, an American bid for Greenland would profoundly strain - and could permanently alter - the transatlantic alliance,” he said.