Opinion | A nation, not an asset: Why Greenland isn’t a Manhattan real estate deal

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

When Erik the Red, the father of Leif Erikson, was banished from Iceland in 982, it’s said he called the island Greenland in an attempt to lure more settlers. More arrived, but the lack of wood, limited arable land and harsh conditions led to the mysterious disappearance of the settlements about 400 years later. Meanwhile, Inuit communities, well adapted to Arctic conditions, endured. A Norwegian Lutheran missionary tried again in the early 1720s, establishing a settlement at the current capital of Nuuk.

For many Minnesotans, Greenland’s history is close to home. At the Treaty of Kiel in January 1814, the Danes ceded Norway to Sweden and maintained control of the Atlantic Islands: Greenland, Iceland and the Faroe Islands. That tumultuous year, which also saw Norway declare a brief independence from Sweden and adopt its constitution on May 17, a date well-known here as Syttende Mai.

Despite appearing larger than Africa on many world maps, Greenland is actually just slightly larger than the Midwest region. With about 80% of the island covered in ice averaging a mile thick, Greenland’s population of 56,000, roughly the same as Apple Valley, is located primarily along its rocky southwest coast. Yet, this small population sits on a strategic gold mine.

The American interest in Greenland isn’t new. It is rooted in the explorations of Robert Peary. In the 1890s he explored and mapped northern Greenland, planting the American flag on the rocky northern coast. During World War I, the risk of German occupation of neutral Denmark raised the potential of submarine bases in the Caribbean threatening Panama Canal shipping. This prompted the U.S. to negotiate the purchase of the Danish West Indies and relinquish any diplomatic claim to “Peary Land” in northern Greenland. While there may be historical precedent with the Louisiana Purchase, Alaska and the Danish West Indies (the Virgin Islands now), those lands were bought from mostly willing sellers. This is not the case with the government in Greenland, where over 85% of the citizens in a recent poll opposed becoming part of the United States.

What drives the national security interest? It is a combination of natural resources, such as rare earth metals, uranium and oil, and its geographic location. Chinese investments in mining exploration in Greenland have recently stalled; there is concern that Chinese influence will continue and the U.S. will miss out on extraction opportunities. Greenland’s eastern coast also sits astride the transit route for Russia’s Northern Fleet submarines traveling from the Kola Peninsula to the Atlantic. This is a strategic concern that includes NATO’s operation of the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK Gap) monitoring system using sea and air assets. Today, the island also plays a vital role in the “Golden Dome” for America initiative, with Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule) serving as a primary node in the nation’s layered missile defense and space surveillance architecture.

Greenlanders have long sought independence, hoping their natural resources might one day fund a sovereign state. But the island is a nation, not a block of midtown Manhattan real estate. If the U.S. were to somehow acquire Greenland, would the population abide by shifting control from Copenhagen to Washington? Would they trade their current Danish and E.U. citizenship to become U.S. citizens without congressional representation, like those in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands? Or would they prefer “Free Association” — the status held by Palauans, who remain sovereign but are “qualified aliens” eligible for most U.S. federal programs? Alternatively, a future Greenland might demand a settlement similar to the Alaska Native Corporations, where the Inuit would retain corporate control over the very natural resources — uranium, oil and rare earths — that Washington so highly prizes.

The convergence of climate change and great-power competition has transformed Greenland from a remote, icy outpost into a strategic flash point. The island’s future, however, is not just a matter for Washington, Beijing or Copenhagen to decide. The Greenlandic people, with their rich history of self-determination and clear opposition to any simple “sale,” hold the key.

As the ice melts, the global community must respect that Greenland is a nation seeking its own path to independence, not another piece of real estate to be traded. Whether through traditional territory status, a Free Association agreement, or full sovereignty, any enduring solution for the Arctic nation must prioritize the democratic will and cultural survival of its 56,000 residents. Greenland’s future will be built by its people, on the land they inhabit.