President Trump says he wants to buy Greenland — the Danish say it’s not for sale. Joshua Keating is a senior correspondent at Vox covering foreign policy and world news with a focus on the future of international conflict. He joins host Krys Boyd to discuss the idea that the U.S. could take Greenland – possibly by force – and why that has international leaders worried about the potential for future land grabs. His article is “The real danger of Trump’s Greenland gambit.”
- +
Transcript
Krys Boyd [00:00:00] President Trump is known around the world for a certain amount of bluster. In his first term, he threatened to prosecute both fired FBI Chief James Comey and his vanquished onetime rival, Hillary Clinton. Neither came to pass, but this time around, the president has wasted little time following through on plans to deport large numbers of immigrants without legal status who reside in the country. To withdraw the U.S. from its commitment to the Paris Climate Accord and to fire inspectors general he views as insufficiently loyal to him and his priorities. So when Donald Trump says he wants the U.S. to take control of Greenland, it is worth assuming this might be more than just a passing whim. From Kera in Dallas, this is Think. I’m Kris Boyd. Of course, it is not quite as easy as simply demanding this strategic piece of territory at the top of the world. Go over to the United States. Greenland is under the control of Denmark, and its small but proud population of mostly indigenous people has been making strides toward increasing self-determination. But if Trump continues to press for this, what options might he be willing and able to deploy to get his way? And what might the consequences be for the world beyond that territory? Joshua Keating is a senior correspondent covering foreign policy and world News with a focus on the future of international conflict at Vox, which published his article, “The Real Danger of Trump’s Greenland Gambit.” Joshua, welcome back to Thank.
Joshua Keating [00:01:25] Thanks for having me.
Krys Boyd [00:01:26] I want to start with the basics. Greenland has a population of like 57,000 people. Currently, 90% of its exports come from fishing. What puts this on President Trump’s wish list?
Joshua Keating [00:01:38] Well, there are a couple of reasons people are taking more notice of Greenland. One is simply its location in the Arctic, which is an area of sort of increasingly heated geopolitical competition. And that’s because as ice melts due to global warming, areas of the Arctic are becoming navigable for the first time. So, you know, we see ships transiting along the north coast of Russia for the first time, for instance, and that’s led to an increased military buildup in the region. You know, Russia’s been opening a number of shuttered old Soviet military bases. And, you know, this is all happening in the context of the war in Ukraine and increasing tension between Russia and the U.S.. And then there’s the minerals question and the you know, a lot of the, you know, metals like lithium, which are important for building batteries, these rare earth metals, which are going to be critical for the green transition, but which China currently has a near monopoly on the supply of a lot of those are available in substantial amounts in Greenland. So that’s a reason a lot of people are taking a notice, taking more notice of Greenland, Spartacus. These resources are now becoming more accessible as the ice melts. So, you know, there’s a kind of irony here that, you know, these resources that are going to be necessary to wean us off fossil fuels are becoming more accessible as a result of global warming.
Krys Boyd [00:03:10] The President did utter the phrase manifest destiny in his inauguration speech. And I know specifically there he was referring to space exploration. Do you think, though, that particular phrase was included to remind Americans of a time when at least it felt as if we could just keep expanding whenever and wherever we wished to?
Joshua Keating [00:03:29] Yeah, I know. And Trump and people around him will point out that there’s there’s some precedent for doing this. I mean, over 50% of America’s territory was purchased in one way or another. If you look at the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaska Purchase, the treaty that ended the Mexican-American War, which the U.S. paid money for, basically what’s most of the American Southwest now. So there’s some precedent to this. I mean, the most recent example was what used to be the Danish West Indies, which we now know as the U.S. Virgin Islands, which were purchased by the U.S. from Denmark around World War One. So this has happened before. It doesn’t happen very often these days. And that’s not just an American thing in general. The sale of territory from one country to another or the sort of voluntary redrawing of borders doesn’t happen very often anymore. And a lot of that’s because we live in an era where most of the world’s landmass s is no longer covered by these colonial empires and powers in Europe to just trade territory back and forth. Most of the world’s landmass is covered by nation states. And there’s a general principle that holds that, you know, the people who live in those territories have should have some say over the people who govern over them. So this idea that, you know, these territories are just sort of, you know, chips to be traded back and forth between powers, that that’s not really something that that just happens very often anymore.
Krys Boyd [00:05:04] The United States already has a military base in Greenland. What sort of operations are carried out, what used to be called the Air Force base Air base and is now Pacific Space Base.
Joshua Keating [00:05:16] Yes, a bit of expense base is the northernmost U.S. military base in the world, and it’s a key node in America’s missile early warning system. So if, God forbid, there were a sort of ballistic missile attack, you know, incoming toward the United States, it might be because of this base in Greenland that we have at least a few minutes notice of it. And, you know, interestingly, like Trump has also this week issued an order about what he calls an iron dome for America, basically reinvesting in missile defense to sort of protect the U.S. from ballistic missile threats and hypersonic missile threats. And, you know, there’s a lot of debate over whether these systems work or whether they’re even worth the huge cost to them. This goes back to the Reagan era and Star Wars. But, you know, if we do start building out that system, Greenland may end up being a key component of it. And it is worth emphasizing that even under the current arrangement where Greenland is not part of the United States, the U.S. has this base there. It has military assets in Greenland already.
Krys Boyd [00:06:25] Yeah, I do wonder what could be achieved from the president’s viewpoint by commandeering the entire 836,000mi² of Greenland that we can’t do with a base alone or perhaps an expanded military presence there.
Joshua Keating [00:06:42] Well, this is a good question. And, you know, so the argument you hear from Donald Trump is that this is what he called an absolute necessity for US national security. And in he rightly says that there is increasing, you know, Russian and Chinese military and strategic assets in the Arctic. You know, there was a conversation which was reported on after actually after I published my piece by the Financial Times, which said that there was this call between Trump and Better. Frederiksen is the prime minister of Denmark shortly before the inauguration in which she basically told the president, you know, Greenland is not for sale. We’re not going to give it to you, but we’re open for conversation. And, you know, having, you know, more U.S. military assets and more cooperation. And Trump apparently was having nothing, having none of that. So he, you know, reiterated that, you know, Greenland would eventually be U.S. territory and, you know, even apparently threatened to use sort of punitive tariffs on Denmark to force force the issue. And, you know, we saw in last weekend, in the brief blow up between the US and Colombia over deportation flights, that this administration does seem to be willing to use the threat of punitive tariffs in international disputes. So this is something that understandably, the Danes are apparently taking quite seriously. And Frederiksen has been traveling around Europe trying to sort of rally support for her cause. And they also this past week announced a new $2 billion investment in Arctic security and sort of building up their own military assets. So this is something that, you know, sends a message that the you know, that if the argument was that the Danes don’t take Arctic security seriously enough, this seems to be them sending a message that they are that they’re going to be spending a lot more money on military assets in this region. Will that be enough to satisfy Trump? I mean, that’s not something I can answer.
Krys Boyd [00:08:53] Denmark is a member of NATO, as is the United States, although President Trump is famously not a fan of the alliance. What sort of provisions exist to deal with the once unthinkable possibility that two NATO’s member States could engage in even symbolic military operations against one another?
Joshua Keating [00:09:13] Yeah, I mean, you’re right. It is sort of unprecedented. I mean, that there have been disputes between narrow members before. The one that comes to mind is Greece and Turkey, which have a number of outstanding territorial disputes and have had deaths of near. Not military conflicts, but but a lot of tension over the years. But the idea of the U.S.. Of the United States, the kind of security cornerstone of NATO’s engaging in this kind of dispute with Denmark is is kind of unheard of. And, you know, I think an important thing to mention here is that it would be one thing if Trump had merely said that he wants to buy Denmark. You know, he can propose whatever plans he wants. That’s he’s the president. That’s his right. But when he was asked in a press conference if he would rule out using military action to force the issue, he said, no, he wouldn’t rule that out. So, I mean, I think that, you know, Trump first brought this up during his first term back in 2019. And at that time, Frederiksen kind of dismissed that as absurd. She said she hoped he was joking. I think it was after he gave that answer that both the Danish government and other governments in Europe started taking it very seriously. We saw Olaf Schulz, the German chancellor, issued his own statement saying, you know, aimed at the U.S., saying borders must never be changed by force. And, you know, that’s the kind of statement we’re used to hearing directed at Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, not not at the president of the United States. So I think they’ve definitely gone gone past the point of of laughing this off.
Krys Boyd [00:10:55] If the U.S. were to take possession of Greenland in some way. This is all theoretical at this point. But how might its economic value and potential compare with its national security value and potential to the United States?
Joshua Keating [00:11:10] Yeah. Well, I think another thing worth pointing out is that, you know, if the idea is natural resources and supposedly Trump first got wind of this idea after our conversation at the White House with Representative one of these mining companies, the US companies are already bidding for natural resources in Greenland for mining contracts on these rare earth minerals. So that includes, say, a mining venture backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos. So it’s not as if this has to be US sovereign territory for U.S. mining companies to sort of get in the mix, you know, in terms of how this would work. I mean, I don’t think anyone has statehood for Greenland in mind. I mean it people I live in Washington, D.C. people say we’re too small to be a state where 700,000 people. This is 57,000 people. But, you know, there’s some people talked about the Pacific island of Palau as an example. That’s that’s, you know, an independent nation state that is, you know, a member of the member of the United Nations as so complete self-determination, but also has this kind of association agreement with the U.S. where they sort of rely on the U.S. for its national security. The U.S. gets sort of access to Palau’s waters. And, you know, residents of that country get certain benefits in terms of like visa free travel to the U.S. and things like that. So I’ve seen that model kind of floated by, for instance, you know, the right wing Heritage Foundation, which has been the sort of source of a lot of the, you know, ideas animating the Trump’s early policy move. So it hasn’t totally been spelled out how this would actually work. But that may be one possibility.
Krys Boyd [00:13:01] I mean, some geologists believe Greenland could be sitting above a wealth of valuable materials, including battery metals, which are suddenly incredibly important. What are the challenges of confirming this? I know there’s not a whole lot of mining happening now and then extracting those materials, if they are found to be buried like well below the ice sheet.
Joshua Keating [00:13:20] Yeah. I mean, so a lot of these mining projects have also encountered a lot of local resistance because of the environmental damage caused by mining. In 2021, Greenland’s parliament, parliament passed legislation banning uranium mining, for instance, and halting one of these rare earths projects. But yeah, I mean, this just sort of shows that there’s there’s local resistance to some of these projects. And a lot of this wealth is theoretical at this point.
Krys Boyd [00:13:52] Joshua Greenland and Denmark are about 1300 miles away from each other. We’ll note that, you know, just a little more than half the distance between California and Hawaii. But how did Denmark come to claim territorial rights to Greenland?
Joshua Keating [00:14:06] Well, Greenland’s actually been under Danish rule since about the 18th century. You know, it used to be an informal just kind of trading posts, but eventually became a lot more formal over time. There was a brief period during World War Two, whereas occupied by Germany and then was actually a U.S. protectorate for a little while after that. And, you know, President Harry Truman actually made an offer after World War Two to take permanent control of the island. That was rejected by Denmark. But, you know, I think it’s important to point out like this isn’t just a sort of purely just this colony, just property that Denmark can sell at will. I mean, Greenland has been moving gradually toward full independence back in the 70s. They attained home rule. They have their own parliament. There was a 28 referendum where they took on even greater political autonomy. And basically the current arrangement between Greenland, Denmark, they’re mostly self-governing in terms of domestic issues. You know, Denmark is still responsible for sort of foreign policy and national security policy, but also Greenland, at least according to the law, has the right to declare independence when it wants to. You know, there are a number of economic reasons why it hasn’t. I mean, Greenlanders also sort of enjoy about half $1 billion in social welfare payments that are sent by by Copenhagen to Greenland every year. They’ve access to, you know, there’s the Nordic welfare system, so they have access to free health care, access to Danish universities. So there are reasons why it is sort of to their advantage to maintain this relationship with Denmark. But at the same time, you know, they have been moving sort of toward fuller independence, which I think is an aspect of this that kind of got left out of the discussions, which makes it sound like this is just a treaty that Washington and Copenhagen could sign with each other and turn it over.
Krys Boyd [00:16:01] Yeah. Understandably, the people of Greenland will want a say in this. I mean, presumably, even in a population of 57,000 people, you might have like 56,000 different opinions on these things. Do you know anything about what Greenland residents feel about this claim by Donald Trump that he wants the U.S. to possess their country?
Joshua Keating [00:16:22] Well, there was a poll that came out just this week, which is sort of the first kind of comprehensive poll conducted on this issue. And in that 85% of Greenlanders were opposed to joining the U.S.. And just 6% in favor. And of course, you know, all the caveats. Green 57,000 people. It’s hard to get a reliable poll. But like if 85% is a pretty solid statement and, you know, the current government of Greenland, which should be said, is fairly leftwing, that the prime minister is also opposed to this idea. You know, basically their position has been we’re open for business. We’re happy to to discuss, you know, sort of closer relations with the U.S., but we’re not for sale. So that’s been the response. I mean, when Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, sort of made this kind of high profile visit to Greenland just before the inauguration and sort of posting about it on his social media platforms, You know, from what I’ve heard, people there were kind of happy about that because there’s sort of promotion for Greenland. And, you know, it highlighted, you know, that they’re going to be, I believe, in a few months there going to be direct flights from the U.S. to do Greenland for the first time. So know, I think they’re happy to for some attention from from the from the American people for people to be more aware of them, maybe for more investment, more tourism. But that that’s not the same thing as actually being part of the United States, being part of a very different political system from the one that they’ve been part of since World War Two.
Krys Boyd [00:18:03] So Denmark has extended to Greenland the possibility of being entirely sovereign at some point in the future if they choose to take that offer out of their back pocket. Does Denmark today, I mean, perceive the same national security and economic economic potential? In Greenland as President Trump does.
Joshua Keating [00:18:22] Yeah. I mean, the way I’ve heard it explained to me by experts in Denmark is that, you know, a lot of, you know, this sort of and, you know, I don’t think Danes would dispute this characterizations. But but, you know, a mid-sized European country kind of punches above its weight on the international scene in large part because of Greenland. You know, as I mentioned earlier, there’s sort of increasing interest in the Arctic as a domain of geopolitical competition. And Denmark literally has a seat at that table. They’re part of the Arctic Council because of of Greenland. So I think that, you know, as as these issues become more relevant in a world of increasing great power competition between the U.S., between Russia, between China, which also has increasing interests in the Arctic, you know, Denmark kind of has a much higher international profile because of Greenland. And I think it would be. And it’s also int erestingly enough, Denmark is the only EU state with territory above the Arctic Circle either. Norway has a coastline coastline above on the Arctic Sea, but is not a member of the EU. So there are all these reasons why Greenland is remains important to Denmark and they’d be kind of loath to give it up either to full independence eventually or to, you know, whatever scheme Donald Trump has in mind.
Krys Boyd [00:19:51] What kind of retaliation might the EU mount to defend Denmark’s right to Greenland in the face of any kind of Trump effort to take over?
Joshua Keating [00:20:02] Yeah, I mean, that’s going to be a key question going forward. And I think we should look at this in context of the larger tensions between Donald Trump and NATO. You know, during his first term, he frequently harangued the alliance for not spending more on its defense budget. Since then, a lot of these countries have actually increased their defense budgets. But he would like to be spending more. There’s sort of differences in approach to Ukraine. You know, Donald Trump came in saying he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours. You know, he now seems, you know, to have accepted the fact he’s going to take longer than that and, you know, does not seem to be actually just sort of cutting off aid to Ukraine. But, you know, the there’s still a big question mark about what his approach to that conflict is. And generally speaking, you know, the the transatlantic alliance was fairly tense under the first Trump term and looks to be that way a second term. So, you know, this has leaders like, you know, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, talking about this idea of strategic autonomy, that basically Europe has to rely less on the United States for its defense needs to build up its own military capabilities, needs to develop a more independent foreign policy. I mean, you know, this is something Europeans have been talking about forever. But I think, you know, the both the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which sort of highlighted the very real military threats to Europe that that exist and the kind of uncertainty in the relationship that Donald Trump has created has sort of reanimated these conversations. And I think that, you know, whether depending on how seriously, you know, we still don’t know how seriously Donald Trump’s actually going to pursue this Greenland thing. But I think we have to view it in context of these sort of larger ruptures between between us and Europe in the Trump era.
Krys Boyd [00:22:08] Well, let’s go there. I mean, how seriously do you think President Trump will take this stated desire to possess Greenland? How far will he be?
Joshua Keating [00:22:20] Like, if I were if I were inside Donald Trump’s head, that would make it a lot easier to do, to do my job. But, you know, it’s I think it’s clear this isn’t being treated as a joke anymore. I mean, we’ve seen they’re a member of Congress and he goes from Tennessee, has put forward legislation to make Greenland Great Again act which basically provides support, basically says Congress should support Trump as he negotiates this. You know, we saw from Frederick Stern’s conversation with Trump and their announced investments in Arctic security that they’re not lapping this this off either. And so, you know, it’s how seriously will he pursue this? It’s hard to say. I mean, you know, there are I have heard from people even since I wrote this article, people just say that this is a distraction. This is a joke. Like we should like there’s, you know, in an era where, you know, they’re halting all foreign aid, where there no where they’re increasing deportations, where all these they’re trying to dramatically cut the size of the federal government. Like, why are we even talking about Greenland? So, I mean, I do think I’m not going to argue that it’s more important than to other things that are going on right now in the first month of the Trump administration. But I, I would I don’t think we should dismiss it entirely either. I don’t think it’s just a distraction. And I think it tells us something about the kind of more transactional approach that Trump takes to foreign policy, including on questions of like borders and sovereignty and, you know, how kind of global politics is transforming in a way where like spheres of influence and sort of quasi imperial relations between, you know, great powers and their immediate neighbors, maybe something that’s more just sort of accepted as the rules, as the rules of the road in the years ahead.
Krys Boyd [00:24:30] Is it, do you think, a reasonable comparison to characterize this as an extension to the way Donald Trump has been doing business for most of his career, which is to say there might be a hotel somewhere that is not for sale, but that, you know, Donald Trump, the business tycoon, wanted to possess and showed up with an offer that the owners couldn’t refuse.
Joshua Keating [00:24:52] Yeah. I mean, he he’s discussed it in those terms specifically. I mean, he’s talked about, you know, if you buy, you’re doing a development on a block and there’s, you know, somebody else owns the corner store on that block, then you want to, you know, control the whole property. So, you know, Greenland is in this analogy is the corner store, I guess, You know, I think it’s like, you know, sovereign territory doesn’t work the same way as property. It’s not just selling a piece of land from one owner to another. This is not how it works. There’s there’s people who live there who who have, you know, some say over over who governs them. So I think that’s true in a business sense. And also, I think that President Trump has taken a sort of more fluid, you could say, approach to questions of national borders and sovereignty than a lot of his predecessors. During his first term, for instance, he recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which, you know, the U.S. had not previously done. And most of the international community had previously recognized that as territory of Syria that was being occupied by Israel. He recognized Moroccan claims over the disputed territory of Western Sahara that again, broke with decades of precedent. You know, he’s already in his new term, talked about, you know, just clearing out Gaza, just saying, you know, that territory is totally destroyed. Why can’t, you know, Egypt and Jordan and other countries just like take these people in? So I think there’s a there is he does have this idea that these lines on the map are a lot more just sort of fungible. And that includes the people within them than, you know, presidents of the United States have, you know, at least since Woodrow Wilson’s day, if not before.
Krys Boyd [00:26:56] Joshua, do any other countries currently maintain, besides perhaps Denmark, a military presence in Greenland?
Joshua Keating [00:27:04] No. And I think another interesting aspect of this is there was an incident a few years ago when a Chinese mining company tried to buy its or disused Danish naval base in Greenland, and Denmark actually blocked that sale in part out of a desire to sort of maintain good relations with the U.S. They knew this was something Washington would frown on. And so I think that that goes to show that, you know, Denmark is as these go, Denmark’s a pretty loyal ally. I mean, Danish troops have have, I believe, died fighting in Afghanistan as well. So, you know, if if another country is going to control its territory, which we see as vital to our national security, I mean, you could you know, Denmark’s about as close to the U.S. as you got.
Krys Boyd [00:27:56] It does seem highly irregular for a United States president to be in the 21st Century, to be, you know, talking about a desire to take over sovereign territory. Is there a national argument to be made on behalf of the United States that it’s better for the U.S. to take Greenland in some way than for Russia to perhaps pursue the same territory?
Joshua Keating [00:28:19] What a really see an example Russia’s trying to take over Greenland. Russia is has quite a bit of Arctic territory on its own and a lot of military assets it shells sailing warships around. But you know, there was an incident a few years ago where politics under the Obama administration where a Russian submersible actually planted a Russian flag underneath the North Pole underwater, that a remote controlled submarine that did that at the time, you know, people sort of sniffed about this thing like, they’re acting like it’s the 18th century, that they can just go plant their flag somewhere and declare it their territory. But, you know, that’s the and now it’s the U.S. trying to do that. I mean, I think a concern about this is that this could just sort of validate other countries that want to pressure their neighbors into making territorial claims. I mean, it’s not surprising that this Greenland issue has gotten a lot of attention in the Russian media. I mean, they you know, the Russian argument has been that Ukraine is rightfully within Russia’s sphere of influence, is just sort of an artificial border that was drawn between Russia and Ukraine. And there they have sort of a historical right to to Crimea, to eastern Ukraine. So, you know, of course, they didn’t offer to buy it. They just came in with their military and took it over. But, you know, Trump hasn’t ruled out doing that either. And, you know, China and Taiwan and China’s been sort of ramping up its economic coercion and military presence in an effort to kind of pressure Taiwan into sort of accepting Chinese sovereignty. So I think that, you know, you can you can be like, what’s the big deal? It’s it’s Greenland. Like, why, why, why not it be part of the U.S. instead of part of Denmark? But I think that there’s a sort of Pandora’s box. If we just accept the idea that in the 21st country, countries can just sort of like bully their smaller neighbors into, you know, giving up their sovereignty.
Krys Boyd [00:30:18] Just to digress here, but not much, Joshua, President Trump has also talked about grabbing control of the Panama Canal back from Panama. Here again, the Panamanians are saying this is a nonstarter. Why does the president want the U.S. to repo the canal?
Joshua Keating [00:30:34] The argument here is that there’s sort of increased Chinese investment and influence around the Panama Canal. I mean, Trump has said China’s taken over the canal, which which is not true. I mean, is true. The Chinese also have a strategic interest there. So, you know, and I think, you know, if you go back to Jimmy Carter in this original agreement that turned over the canal, that was an enormously controversial issue at the time. People kind of forget about it now, But there was this sort of strain of thought in the Republican Party, in the U.S. that the U.S. was there making this extremely strategically foolhardy move by giving up control of what is a vital, you know, international choke point. And I think that it kind of fallen by the wayside as an issue for the for a long time, but has reemerged. I mean, I think there does seem so far in this administration to be a real focus on the Western Hemisphere, whether it’s Greenland, whether it’s the Panama Canal, whether, you know, it’s it’s talking about Canada as the 51st state and other kind of as he jokingly is anti thing whether it’s you know talking about the renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America whether it’s the dispute with Colombia over deportation flights where Trump threatened to use sanctions and seemingly got Columbia to back down, although it’s a little unclear what was actually agreed. And, you know, Mike Waltz, who’s Trump’s national security adviser, has actually referred to this as Monroe Doctrine 2.0, referring back to the original Monroe Doctrine, which dealt with, you know, the U.S. sort of keeping foreign powers out of the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. sphere of influence, which, you know, over time also came to be used to sort of justify, you know, gunboat diplomacy and U.S. interventions throughout Latin America. We haven’t quite gotten there yet. But, you know, it’s it is clear that this president, this national security adviser and, you know, Marco Rubio, secretary of state, who during Trump’s first term was referred to as in the media, as the secretary of state for Latin America, because he took such a strong interest in regional issues and guided the administration’s policy so much, it’s clear that they’re definitely paying attention to America’s backyard, maybe to a greater extent than previous administrations and in some cases, maybe to a greater extent than those countries would actually prefer.
Krys Boyd [00:32:56] So I don’t know a whole lot about the Panama Canal. I know the U.S.. What contributed to the building of the canal And then based on an agreement that had been previously drawn up, there was a point at which the control was handed over entirely to Panama. Is that accurate?
Joshua Keating [00:33:14] Yes. The U.S. believe that a lease over the canal for decades and this was renegotiated under the late Jimmy Carter’s administration, but formal control of the canals handed over in the 1990s. And yeah again it’s it’s it was it was an enormously controversial issue at the time and this was still during the Cold War. And maybe people referred to the era we live in now as a new Cold War kind of return to great power competition and increasing concern about Chinese influence in Latin America, Russian influence in Latin America. So maybe some of these Cold War era issues are going to come back along with that.
Krys Boyd [00:33:52] So could Panama avoid the president’s desire to take back the canal by, say, cutting U.S. freighters a better deal when they pass through it?
Joshua Keating [00:34:03] Yeah. I mean, I’m not sure the U.S. actually has the means to, you know, force the issue to force Panama to give up the canal. It’s its Panamanian territory. So unless it’s sort of an enormously profitable and strategically important asset for Panama, which I don’t think they’re going to want to give up control. So I don’t imagine they’re going to be plans to, you know, invade Panama again to. You know, the U.S. has done in the past, but I don’t think we’re going to see that. But, you know, of course, we could see sort of more negotiations around the status of these things. And I think that that may be what ultimately happens in a lot of these issues is that the Trump administration kind of stakes out a kind of maximalist position and then sort of deals are negotiated at the margins that assert change the status quo, but maybe not quite what the administration came in with in the first place. And, you know, you could say that’s effective in the way we seem to have gotten our way with with Colombia with these deportation flights. You know, you have to ask about the sort of long term cost for that sort of speak loudly and carry a big stick sort of diplomacy and whether these countries will act, what it will actually end up encouraging some of these countries to sort of look to China as a, you know, friendlier, fewer strings attached kind of economic partner.
Krys Boyd [00:35:23] The moral implications of the United States seizing territory anywhere in the world is such an enormous question that it probably deserves its own conversation someday soon. But setting that aside for the moment, what are the most significant potential geopolitical implications of even talking seriously about these things?
Joshua Keating [00:35:44] Well, you know, I think that one thing you know, I think the last time you had me on your show was was talking about my book Invisible Countries, which which refers. And a big part of the argument I was making there was that we live in an era where borders just don’t change very much in, in, you know, compared to other periods of history. You know, the world map has stayed relatively static. We don’t very often see countries seizing, trying to gobble up their neighbors, trying to seize territory from their neighbors by force or take over their neighbors entirely by force. You know, conquer territory is, you know, a norm against territorial conquest, which is, you know, enshrined in the U.N. charter and is actually mostly observed. You know, when Iraq tried to take over Kuwait, the U.S. sort of built an international coalition to push them back. And so we don’t see very many of these wars of conquest. We see very fewer successful ones. And I think that’s one reason why the war in Ukraine, Russia’s effort to seize territory in Ukraine, to sort of overthrow the pro-Western government of Ukraine, has been such a sort of shock to the international system because this sort of thing just doesn’t happen that often anymore. And I think that, you know, it is important, you know, perhaps we should have sort of mechanisms for talking about a, you know, how to sort of more peacefully trade territory. Maybe, you know, and if if Greenlanders actually did want to become part of the U.S. and, you know, the U.S. could put together a sort of package that made that worthwhile for them and that then, you know, that’s that’s something we could talk about. But I think talking about it in this high handed way where it’s just sort of territory that can be traded back and forth without the consent of the people who live there. And, you know, Trump’s refusal to rule out force just kind of validates these other moves by by U.S. adversaries and sort of it sort of dangerously undermines, I think, a kind of norm that’s been pretty effective at preventing, you know, very dangerous international conflict over the last few decades.
Krys Boyd [00:38:05] Yeah. I mean, have those norms against international conquests been a result of the adoption of small liberal democracy that doesn’t seem to be so popular in in lots of countries in the world where it was thought to have been well-established and permanent.
Joshua Keating [00:38:21] You know, if you look at the way Russia and China talk about territory, it’s they very much emphasize spheres of influence and resent sort of outside interference in their sovereign territory. And the U.S. has done that, too. And, you know, throughout history, like the Cuban missile Crisis, sparked by, you know, placing Soviet missiles in Cuba. So, you know, there is a history of this thing, but it’s not sort of the actual conquest of territory. And, you know, I think if if those sort of norms go out the window, then we’re really sort of probably in a much more dangerous and unstable world.
Krys Boyd [00:38:59] I have to tell you, Joshua, reading your article, I was thinking about playing Monopoly as a kid, right. Like if several people were playing and all the real estate was locked up, you had this space and it could go on and on and on. But if somebody went home, everything suddenly was very unstable.
Joshua Keating [00:39:16] My comparison was risk. Which. Which? I think Greenland. I think you could actually conquer Greenland and risk. But yeah.
Krys Boyd [00:39:24] I mean, if you’ll forgive the simplicity of that metaphor, is this something we might inadvertently set in motion around the world if we move aggressively, either economically through sanctions or through military action to take these two territories?
Joshua Keating [00:39:43] Well, you know, it’s a different. View of national power. I think that there has been a kind of prevailing consensus that, you know, that the US obviously has a very powerful military, but also like derives a lot of its strength from alliances, from being part of NATO’s, from, you know, the fact that we can have our part of our missile base in Greenland. China doesn’t have that. It was a huge news story when, you know, China had one base in Africa, in Djibouti. I mean, the US has dozens of them. That’s because we’ve sort of built this system of alliances. That’s clearly not how Trump views their territory. It’s much more just about the actual control of real estate, which I think is a little closer maybe to, you know, how someone like Vladimir Putin looks at it. And so, yeah, I mean, I think I think we take for granted that we you know, it’s not that we live in a time of of, you know, world peace by any means, but the actual seizure of territory wars over territory which have been some of the bloodiest and most dangerous wars in history, those don’t happen that often anymore. And I think we shouldn’t take for granted, take that for granted, and we should tread very carefully and not not sort of treat these issues like a joke.
Krys Boyd [00:41:12] Stipulating once again that Greenland is not for sale. If in some parallel universe, Denmark was willing to play ball and the people of Greenland were okay with, you know, their national affiliations changing. Would possessing Greenland be an unmitigated good benefit for the United States?
Joshua Keating [00:41:35] You know, it’s funny, I referred before to a Heritage Foundation proposal. Proposal where they suggested this Pulau model. And actually, one of the reasons they stated that was is a presumption if if Greenland actually became a state like it would, as I said, as a very left wing government. Now, that would mean two more Democratic senators. So, yes, President Trump should be careful what he wishes for in wanting Greenland to become part of the U.S.. I mean, you know, it’s Greenland has strategic importance. It’s a it’s a you know, has a lot of economic potential. It’s I’ve never actually been to the place, but it looks absolutely beautiful. It’s somewhere I’d like to visit. But but, you know, it’s it’s what actually benefit the U.S.. I mean I think the I don’t see what Americans can’t get from Greenland. They can’t get from it. Now. I don’t see why it actually has to be part of the United States for for the U.S. to sort of derive all the military, economic, touristic, cultural, environmental benefits that that this this very large and spectacular place can provide.
Krys Boyd [00:42:57] Just asking you to predict the future, which I know is probably something you’re loath to do. But do you think the President will stick with this if he’s not able to quickly achieve what he wants? Or is this something that he might move on from?
Joshua Keating [00:43:11] I saw the other day, there was one poly market. I think the betting market you could actually buy a contract on whether the US would take over Greenland by July. I think that was I would not advise your listeners to put money on that. Even even, even in a parallel world where this happens, I think it’s going to take a little longer than that. I mean, I think the most realistic time frame where this could actually happen was, you know, Greenland could, as I mentioned, hold a referendum on full independence from Denmark. That’s something they’ve talked about before. And then post independence, some signed some sort of association agreement compact with the United States. So that that’s a model where it could happen. As I said, the current government of Greenland doesn’t seem interested in that. People from Greenland of Greenland don’t seem particularly interested in that. I mean, my guess is that, you know, we’re we’re a week into this administration now. I think there are going to be some larger priorities on the president’s desk that are going to, I think, probably take up more of his time than pursuing, you know, Greenland to the hilt. But, you know, he calls it an absolute necessity. So it’s you never really know at this president.
Krys Boyd [00:44:31] Joshua Keating is a senior correspondent covering foreign policy and world news with a focus on international conflict at Vox, which published his article, “The Real Danger of Trump’s Greenland Gambit.” Joshua, thanks for making time to talk again. Really appreciate it.
Joshua Keating [00:44:46] Thanks for having me.
Krys Boyd [00:44:47] Think is distributed by PRX, the Public Radio Exchange. You can find us on Instagram, on Facebook, anywhere you get podcasts and at our website think.kera.org. Again, I’m Krys Boyd. Thanks for listening. Have a great day.
