\n<\/p>\n
U.S. President Donald Trump wants to own Greenland. He has repeatedly said the United States must take control of the strategically located and mineral-rich<\/a> island, which is a semiautonomous region that’s part of NATO ally Denmark<\/a>.<\/p>\n Officials from Denmark, Greenland and the United States met Thursday in Washington and will meet again next week to discuss a renewed push by the White House<\/a>, which is considering a range of options, including using military force, to acquire the island.<\/p>\n Trump said Friday he is going to do \u201csomething on Greenland, whether they like it or not.\u201d<\/p>\n If it’s not done \u201cthe easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” he said without elaborating what that could entail. In an interview Thursday, he told The New York Times that he wants to own Greenland because \u201cownership gives you things and elements that you can\u2019t get from just signing a document.\u201d<\/p>\n Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that an American takeover of Greenland would mark the end of NATO<\/a>, and Greenlanders say they don’t want to become part of the U.S.<\/p>\n This is a look at some of the ways the U.S. could take control of Greenland and the potential challenges.<\/p>\n Trump and his officials have indicated they want to control Greenland to enhance American security and explore business and mining deals. But Imran Bayoumi, an associate director at the Atlantic Council\u2019s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, said the sudden focus on Greenland is also the result of decades of neglect by several U.S. presidents towards Washington’s position in the Arctic.<\/p>\n The current fixation is partly down to \u201cthe realization we need to increase our presence in the Arctic, and we don\u2019t yet have the right strategy or vision to do so,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n If the U.S. took control of Greenland by force, it would plunge NATO into a crisis<\/a>, possibly an existential one.<\/p>\n While Greenland is the largest island in the world, it has a population of around 57,000 and doesn’t have its own military. Defense is provided by Denmark, whose military is dwarfed by that of the U.S. <\/p>\n It’s unclear how the remaining members of NATO would respond if the U.S. decided to forcibly take control of the island or if they would come to Denmark’s aid.<\/p>\n \u201cIf the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,\u201d Frederiksen has said.<\/p>\n Trump said he needs control of the island to guarantee American security, citing the threat from Russian and Chinese ships in the region, but \u201cit’s not true\u201d said Lin Mortensgaard, an expert on the international politics of the Arctic at the Danish Institute for International Studies, or DIIS. <\/p>\n While there are probably Russian submarines \u2014 as there are across the Arctic region \u2014 there are no surface vessels, Mortensgaard said. China has research vessels in the Central Arctic Ocean, and while the Chinese and Russian militaries have done joint military exercises in the Arctic, they have taken place closer to Alaska, she said.<\/p>\n Bayoumi, of the Atlantic Council, said he doubted Trump would take control of Greenland by force because it\u2019s unpopular with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, and would likely \u201cfundamentally alter\u201d U.S. relationships with allies worldwide.<\/p>\n The U.S. already has access to Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement, and Denmark and Greenland would be \u201cquite happy\u201d to accommodate a beefed up American military presence, Mortensgaard said.<\/p>\n For that reason, \u201cblowing up the NATO alliance\u201d for something Trump has already, doesn\u2019t make sense, said Ulrik Pram Gad, an expert on Greenland at DIIS. <\/p>\n U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a select group of U.S. lawmakers this week that it was the Republican administration\u2019s intention to eventually purchase Greenland, as opposed to using military force. Danish and Greenlandic officials have previously said the island isn’t for sale.<\/p>\n It’s not clear how much buying the island could cost, or if the U.S. would be buying it from Denmark or Greenland. <\/p>\n Washington also could boost its military presence in Greenland \u201cthrough cooperation and diplomacy,\u201d without taking it over, Bayoumi said. <\/p>\n One option could be for the U.S. to get a veto over security decisions made by the Greenlandic government, as it has in islands in the Pacific Ocean, Gad said.<\/p>\n Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands have a Compact of Free Association, or COFA, with the U.S.<\/p>\n That would give Washington the right to operate military bases and make decisions about the islands\u2019 security in exchange for U.S. security guarantees and around $7 billion of yearly economic assistance, according to the Congressional Research Service.<\/p>\n It’s not clear how much that would improve upon Washington’s current security strategy. The U.S. already operates the remote Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, and can bring as many troops as it wants under existing agreements.<\/p>\n Greenlandic politician Aaja Chemnitz told The Associated Press that Greenlanders want more rights, including independence, but don’t want to become part of the U.S. <\/p>\n Gad suggested influence operations to persuade Greenlanders to join the U.S. would likely fail. He said that is because the community on the island is small and the language is \u201cinaccessible.\u201d<\/p>\n Danish Foreign Minister Lars L\u00f8kke Rasmussen summoned the top U.S. official<\/a> in Denmark in August to complain that \u201cforeign actors\u201d were seeking to influence the country\u2019s future. Danish media reported that at least three people with connections to Trump carried out covert influence operations in Greenland.<\/p>\n Even if the U.S. managed to take control of Greenland, it would likely come with a large bill, Gad said. That\u2019s because Greenlanders currently have Danish citizenship and access to the Danish welfare system, including free health care and schooling. <\/p>\n To match that, \u201cTrump would have to build a welfare state for Greenlanders that he doesn\u2019t want for his own citizens,\u201d Gad said.<\/p>\n Since 1945, the American military presence in Greenland has decreased from thousands of soldiers over 17 bases and installations to 200 at the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest of the island, Rasmussen said last year. The base supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.<\/p>\n U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance told Fox News on Thursday that Denmark has neglected its missile defense obligations in Greenland, but Mortensgaard said that it makes \u201clittle sense to criticize Denmark,\u201d because the main reason why the U.S. operates the Pituffik base in the north of the island is to provide early detection of missiles. <\/p>\n The best outcome for Denmark would be to update the defense agreement, which allows the U.S. to have a military presence on the island and have Trump sign it with a \u201cgold-plated signature,\u201d Gad said.<\/p>\n But he suggested that’s unlikely because Greenland is \u201chandy\u201d to the U.S president.<\/p>\n When Trump wants to change the news agenda \u2014 including distracting from domestic political problems<\/a> \u2014 \u201che can just say the word \u2018Greenland’ and this starts all over again,” Gad said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n