Why is Trump interested in Greenland?

Greenland has been back in international news after President Trump’s renewed claims to the North Atlantic territory. Citing national security concerns, Trump has threatened a variety of measures to obtain Greenland, including annexation or outright purchase. Analysts also point to other related motivations for these claims, such as new Arctic shipping routes opening and Greenland’s deposits of Rare Earth Elements (REEs). This is a story our experts at Burstock have been following closely, with active projects spanning all three sectors. Here, we analyse the motivations behind Trump’s interest in Greenland.

With a Ukraine peace deal hanging in the balance, European leaders are wary of jeopardising US support for European security. Top officials have argued that security in the Arctic should be addressed collectively, while reasserting Greenland and Denmark’s sovereignty over the territory. Behind the diplomatic language lies a deeper concern; that unilateral action could severely undermine, if not fracture, NATO.

The White House responded by asserting that the US was pursuing a range of options to acquire the island, including purchase or the use of military force. In light of US actions in Venezuela, these statements are being taken seriously, and European leaders have avoided directly criticising or confronting the US. While the unpredictability of the US President is an element to consider, the potential factors at play can still be analysed.

Trump has stated that the US needs control of Greenland for national security, pointing to Russia and China’s increased interest in the Arctic in recent years. As arctic ice thaws and new shipping lanes and access points to natural resources emerge, there are fears that Russia and China will gain an advantage in this theatre. Indeed, in recent years Russia has increased its military presence in the Arctic, while China increasingly frames itself as a ‘near-Arctic state’. Both countries are striving to obtain resource and scientific interests in the region.

Strategic chokepoints are central to this concern such as the GIUK gap, the sea route between Greenland, Iceland, and the UK, as crucial for early warning and naval control. Britain’s former ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson recently stated that the “Arctic needs securing against China and Russia,” and that the US is the only actor capable of leading such an effort.

However, economic motivations and resource security could also play a significant role for Trump. A state department spokesperson told the BBC on Tuesday that the US “is eager to build lasting commercial relationships that benefit Americans and the people of Greenland.” Trump himself has previously described the matter as a real estate deal, while Reuters has reported that one option under consideration would be a Compact of Free Association. Currently, US has these agreements with three Pacific Islands Nations, which provide the U.S. with total military access in exchange for free trade, American protection and financial assistance.

Despite Trump’s assertions that national security takes precedence over mineral interests, financial motivations have come to the fore and Greenland’s mineral wealth is the sole valuable export on offer. There are important reserves of key metals like lithium, cobalt, uranium and iron, but REES have taken much of the focus. These group of chemically similar 17 metallic elements have unique magnetic, electrical, thermal stability and luminescent properties. Greenland holds the world’s eighth-largest REE reserves, while China dominates both global reserves and refining capacity. According to a recent Government report, the UK itself is 40 years behind China in both supply and refining capacity for Critical Minerals and REEs.

However, there are issues with mining in Greenland, few licenses are awarded, only one so far to a US company, and the arctic terrain and harsh weather make it difficult to operate in. Moreover, the term ‘rare earths’ is something of a misnomer, since the elements are widely present, including within ordinary mining waste. The difficulty lies not in their presence, but in economically viable extraction and environmentally challenging refining processes. REEs are also value-dependent on purity levels and mining scopes are often misleading, as claims of large resources sometimes rest on minimal deposits, such as in Ukraine.

Whether Trump proceeds with this latest venture remains to be seen. A military intervention would likely prove catastrophic for NATO cohesion and severely jeopardise relations between Europe and the US at a time when American support is critical to European security. Securing Greenland is critical for the defence of Europe, but it must be safeguarded with US help in conjunction with NATO. To secure the future of the free world against Chinese and Russian interference and infiltration, the effort must be collaborative. Ultimately, this opportunity of Trump’s attention should be capitalised upon to resolve this critical issue and develop concrete policy.

Uncategorised