Since the early January U.S. arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, the Trump White House has doubled down on the idea that the United States should acquire Greenland, which has long been part of the Kingdom of Denmark but is moving gradually toward independence.
Although Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently said the U.S. would like to purchase the island instead of invading it, other officials have stressed that the military option remains on the table.
Statements by U.S. President Donald Trump – including his recent threat to impose tariffs on European countries that oppose his bid to take over Greenland – and those of his allies are a source of disbelief and consternation in Denmark and other NATO countries.
As well, polls suggest the vast majority of Greenland residents are opposed to the idea of their island becoming part of the United States. There are two main reasons:
- They already have self-government with the long-term goal of independence – something a U.S. annexation would likely destroy.
- They would lose large benefits because Greenland’s social security system is modelled on the Danish welfare state, with universal access to a broad range of taxpayer-financed social services, including public health, housing and education. The U.S. social safety net is much less comprehensive.
The long road to independence
The path toward growing autonomy started with the 1979 Greenland Home Rule Act, through which Denmark granted Greenland control over a number of areas such as its educational system, labour market regulation, health care and social policy. In 2009, the Act on Greenland Self-Government set out a path of gradually increasing autonomy toward a long-term goal of independence.
Even if that ultimate goal is in an undefined future, the agreement has started a political process and strengthened the institutional and political autonomy of Greenland.
With the exception of a few but important areas such as foreign policy, military defence, currency and constitutional affairs, the 2009 agreement grants Greenland much autonomy.
Arguably, it is exactly the trajectory of growing Greenlandic autonomy that has triggered renewed interest by the Trump administration in the Arctic island (Trump suggested buying Greenland back in 2016).
In particular, Chinese investment in mining and infrastructure in Greenland over the last decades has attracted some positive response among Greenlandic elites and consequently scepticism in Washington and Copenhagen.
In 2015, as it planned the construction of three small airports, the Greenlandic government first turned to Chinese developers, but the Danish government intervened and secured the needed capital to avoid Chinese capital and control of key infrastructure in the Arctic.
The attraction of the U.S. remains extremely limited for Greenlanders – even as it is rumoured that the Trump government is planning to offer its citizens a sign-on fee within the range of US$10,000 to US$100,000 per person to secede from Denmark and join the United States.
In a recent joint statement, all Greenland political parties said they “don’t want to be Americans.”
Greenland’s social security system would be at risk
Another key factor that helps explain why Greenlanders overwhelmingly reject U.S. control but also why part of their local political elite has been reluctant to push for full independence from Denmark is the question of social security.
This is a huge issue for Greenland’s small population of about 56,000 people – 90 per cent of whom are Inuit, scattered over a vast territory that is about 50 times the size of mainland Denmark, a country of more than six million inhabitants.
For these geographical – and other – reasons, access to social services in Greenland is limited compared to mainland Denmark. Delivering highly specialized health services or educational programs in remote and isolated small villages is especially challenging.
Furthermore, Greenland has massive social problems related to child welfare, intra-family violence and related issues, which challenge Greenland’s social security system. This is – only partly – compensated by Greenlanders’ access to specialized universal health services and educational programs in mainland Denmark.
Yet, even if Greenland society is confronted with substantial social challenges, it is difficult to see the attraction of a U.S.-style, meager welfare system.
The issue is further compounded by the annual fiscal transfers from Denmark to Greenland. As Mikkel Runge Olesen from the Danish Institute for International Studies notes, the island “remains dependent on a yearly block grant from Denmark of roughly (US)$600 million, as well as on the Danish state supporting services in areas such as defence, coast guard, and law enforcement.”
Like Canada’s three territories, especially Nunavut, Greenland relies extensively on these transfers because of its limited fiscal capacity and the sheer cost of delivering public services in highly remote and sparsely populated Arctic areas.
This makes the idea of U.S. annexation less appealing to Greenlanders and potentially to people living in Canada’s territories who, fortunately, do not face such an explicit threat yet.
A key problem with U.S. annexation
The Danish welfare state is considered one of the most generous in Europe. So why would many Greenlanders want to join the United States – a country characterized by a deeply flawed safety net, the lack of universal health care and higher levels of poverty and inequality than Denmark?
Greenlanders, especially those living in the most remote areas of the island, are far more likely to live in poverty than people living in mainland Denmark. This is partly due to colonial legacies, including forced displacements and assimilation policies similar to what the Inuit in Nunavut have also faced.
Yes, even though the Danish-controlled modernization of Greenland in the 20th century included paternalism, discrimination and in some cases mistreatment, there is no evidence that becoming a territory of the United States would improve the condition of Greenlanders.
As journalist Ryan Cooper puts it: “The idea that the Trump administration would do better is preposterous—witness the appalling mistreatment of the extant American colony of Puerto Rico, which has no votes in Congress and has still not recovered from Hurricane Maria in 2017.” Why would most Greenlanders want their island to be treated like Puerto Rico?
Lars Rasmussen, the Danish minister of foreign affairs, made the same argument last week on Fox News. “There is no way that the U.S. will pay for a Scandinavian welfare system in Greenland, honestly speaking.”
Greenland’s social programs, as well as the Danish fiscal transfers, reinforce attachment to Denmark – even among Greenland citizens who have legitimate grievances about the not-so-distant colonial past.
This is consistent with a broader worldwide process through which welfare states become instruments of objective, and symbolic, forms of fiscal and social solidarity that may help accommodate ethnic and territorial minorities and foster attachment to the central state.
This is clearly at play today in Greenland where its people strongly oppose annexation by a superpower that does not emphasize or exhibit this type of solidarity on its own territory or internationally.
