Greenland, explained.
Donald Trump Jr arrives in Nuuk, Greenland on 7 January 2025 aboard a private jet as his father as president-elect talks about the US need to acquire Greenland (Emil Stach via AFP/Getty Images)
A Compact of Free Association akin to arrangements in the Pacific could be one answer, if Greenlanders agree.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
The legal options for Trump to acquire GreenlandThe legal options for Trump to acquire Greenland
Acquiring Greenland would now appear to be a foreign policy priority for the incoming Trump administration. Reviving his 2019 proposal for a US takeover of the territory, an idea thought to have been shelved following his 2020 election loss, Trump last week made his ambition for Greenland plain.
Greenland is part of Denmark and a territory within the Danish realm. Despite doubts that have been cast over Copenhagen’s sovereignty, in 1933 an International Court ruled in favour of Denmark in a dispute with Norway over title to the world’s largest island. That ruling has been continually accepted in the years since and there are no competing claims by other Arctic states, including the United States.
There is an American military base in Greenland – the Pituffik Space Base formerly known as Thule Air Base. The base was originally constructed in 1951 during the Cold War, with Denmark one of the founding members of NATO. The role and mission for the base has evolved over time, but there have been no recent public discussions regarding an expansion of the base, or the building of additional US military facilities in Greenland. Yet these are all possibilities following negotiation with Denmark, and the US has many such arrangements in place globally.
So given that the US already has a military presence in Greenland, what is the driver for Trump’s interest in the island?
National security has been given as a justification, and Trump has made specific reference to Chinese and Russian ships in the vicinity of Greenland. Russia is of course an Arctic state, and China is seeking to advance its position as a “near-Arctic State” and has increasingly become active in the region. However, both Chinese and Russian ships enjoy the freedom of navigation consistent with the international law of the sea, a right which the United States regularly asserts especially in the South China Sea. Any US efforts to control the freedom of navigation adjacent to Greenland would therefore be counterproductive to its strategic goals elsewhere.
In recent years it was always understood that Greenland was gradually moving towards independence and while no timetable has been set, negotiations have been ongoing.
Greenland is also known to have reserves of rare earth minerals. As climate change continues its impact and the Greenland ice sheet gradually melts, these minerals are becoming more accessible. The United States would certainly have an interest in gaining access to these minerals, and there are existing legal frameworks and policies in place that already allow for some mining to occur in Greenland. However, Trump would be mindful that across parts of the Arctic there is a strong environmental consciousness that may resist any large-scale mining activity. This runs counter to Trump’s “drill baby drill” slogan that he has sought to promote for Alaska and in American waters.
How then could the US acquire more permanent and substantial interests in Greenland consistent with international law? There is always the prospect of cession, whereby Denmark would agree to transfer Greenland to the United States. While there is a long history of territory being ceded in this manner, Copenhagen has made clear that Greenland is “not for sale”. Greenlanders would need to be consulted about this option, and it is unlikely they would agree to shelve their own national aspirations and become a strategic pawn in great power rivalry.
Greenland is well advanced on a path to independence. The momentum behind that movement needs to both be respected and understood for the opportunities it presents. Greenland’s political and legal background and status here is important. Greenland was a post-Second World War UN non self-governing territory, and formally became part of the Danish Realm in 1953, and transitioned to “Home Rule” in 1978. Under this arrangement Greenland is recognised as a “distinct community”, which was further advanced by the 2009 Greenland Self-Government Act that further extended Home Rule to encompass certain matters associated with Greenland’s foreign relations. Nevertheless, Copenhagen retains ultimate responsibility for the island including for its defence and security. In recent years it was always understood that Greenland was gradually moving towards independence and while no timetable has been set, negotiations have been ongoing between the Greenland government and Copenhagen to achieve this outcome.
An independent Greenland presents an opportunity for the United States to achieve some of the goals that Trump aspires to. US practice with other islands is instructive. The US has up to six different existing categories for the legal and constitutional status of an “insular area”; that is territory that is neither part of a US state or a federal district. These categories include Commonwealth status, incorporated territory, unincorporated territory, organised territory, and unorganised territory, and encompass islands as diverse as Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. The US also has in place separate “Compact of Free Association” arrangements with the Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau. These Pacific countries are all recognised as independent and are UN member States, but their defence and security and certain aspects of their international relations rest with the United States.
This is a model that could be applied to an independent Greenland. Self-determination processes between Copenhagen and the Greenland government in Nuuk could be fast tracked to result in Greenland’s independence sooner than was anticipated, while at the same time negotiations were being advanced with Washington for a Compact of Free Association. Ultimately this is a matter for decision by Greenland and whether any proposed Compact with the United States is an act of free choice by Greenlanders.
About the author
Donald R Rothwell
Donald R Rothwell is Distinguished Professor of International Law at the ANU School of Law, College of Law, Governance and Regulation, ANU and one of Australia’s leading experts in international law with specific focus on the law of the sea, law of the polar regions, use of force and implementation of international law within Australia.
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.