Well one thing that comes up is the Diego Garcia problem. It appears that Downing Street opted to relinquish sovereignty of an isolated territory remote from major population centers for reasons of domestic politics and perhaps international popularity.
As long as we might (continue to) see a major gulf between American and European norms regarding “international law” and politics, American policy makers can rest far more assured that their strategic interests in say Thule are not going to be sold out for concerns in Copenhagen.
And then, of course, there is the bidding war problem. Currently Greenland is run by a PM who formally wants independence. If Greenland votes that through (and they have been voting for more distance from Copenhagen by supermajority), US bases in Greenland are now subject to bidding on the open market. After all, a lot of US bases have had to be abandoned with changes in leadership and we are already seeing China dumping lots of cash to buy influence.
Best outcome, from a US perspective, is Trump waives around money, Greenland votes to accept, and everyone goes home with resolution of the fact that Greenland is likely more salient to US defense interests than Danish defense interests. A more likely scenario is that Greenland accelerates its independence, particularly if Trump can get together a package of mining setups, the US signs some bilateral treaties and perhaps leases directly with the folks who have the ultimate votes, and Denmark maintains some sort of affiliated roll.
But moral posturing over sovereignty and territory is costly. And from a hard nosed American perspective, the assurances that Greenland will not end up embroiled in some moral posturing like Diego Garcia are simply stronger with American or Independent Greenland than with Danish sovereignty.
The Danish government in recent days has privately sent a message to Donald Trump’s team that Copenhagen is happy to negotiate military and economic deals related to Greenland, but it wants the conversations to take place behind closed doors.
And from the WaPo:
Greenland is not for sale. That’s the dominant refrain from the people in the subzero capital of the world’s largest island.
But might Greenland be for rent? Or amenable to a Compact of Free Association? Just as the United States has in the Pacific with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau?
The odds are still against any deal, but this is not impossible either.
That is from Sure. From yesterday’s WSJ:
And from the WaPo:
The odds are still against any deal, but this is not impossible either.