The US proposes complicated legal formulas to take control of a “strategic asset.” From the idea of buying the island to treaties, here’s what to know about an impossible annexation
By The Guardian
Donald Trump has been trying for years. In August 2019, during his first term, he wanted to “buy Greenland.” An idea described as “absurd” and rejected unequivocally by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen. Six years later, he insists, changing the strategy but not the objective: to secure control of the island “for the national security of the United States.” According to what The Economist reports, Washington would like to offer Nuuk a COFA – Compact of Free Association, an agreement that the US already has in force with several small Pacific states.
- WHAT DOES THE TREATY THAT THE US WOULD PROPOSE TO NUUK CONTAINS?
COFA is an international agreement through which the United States regulates relations with a sovereign state. In practice, Washington guarantees that state full autonomy in internal affairs and recognizes it as independent, but assumes responsibility for external defense and security, as well as providing financial assistance.
In exchange, the US gains the right to use that country’s territory for strategic purposes, such as setting up military bases. This type of pact was signed with the small Pacific island states of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau, former territories under US administration after World War II, and dates back to the second half of the 80s.
- IS IT LEGALLY POSSIBLE FOR NUUK TO SIGN SUCH A TREATY AND COME UNDER US CONTROL?
According to international law, no. “Greenland is not a sovereign state, but part of the Kingdom of Denmark,” explains international governance expert Ekaterina Antsygina, from the University of Hamburg. “Greenland’s status within the Kingdom of Denmark is firmly rooted in international law. Danish sovereignty over the island has been consistently upheld through the peaceful and uninterrupted exercise of authority, through tacit acceptance by other states and recognition in international forums.”
According to her, President Trump’s statements, while provocative, ignore the solid legal foundations of Danish sovereignty over Greenland. Furthermore, although the island enjoys broad autonomy under the 2009 Home Rule Act, its right to self-determination guarantees that any step towards independence must be a democratic decision of the Greenlandic people, a decision that, for the time being, has not been taken. In other words: negotiating directly with Nuuk for a security agreement that excludes Copenhagen “has no legal basis.”
- WHY IS STEPHEN MILLER WRONG WHEN HE DEFINES GREENLAND AS A “DANISH COLONY”?
“Defining Greenland as a ‘colony’ is today legally incorrect and politically misleading.” Greenland has gained: Home Rule in 1979; Self-Government in 2009, with clear recognition of the right to self-determination and the option of possible independence in the future. “Describing Greenland as a colony ignores the constitutional evolution of the island and distorts international law. The relationship between Greenland and Denmark is today that of an autonomous territory within a sovereign state, not of a colonial possession.”
- TODAY TRUMP IS THINKING ABOUT A TREATY, BUT IN 2019 HE WANTED TO BUY GREENLAND. ANOTHER STRANGE IDEA?
“Yes, but with a few ‘buts,’” explains Geraldine Giraudeau, professor of international law at the University of Perpignan. International law does not absolutely prohibit the purchase of territory. Historically, there have been cases of territories being handed over for payment (Louisiana from France to the United States in 1803, Alaska from Russia in 1867). However, today such a transaction would require the consent of all parties involved. In the case of Greenland, this would mean the agreement of both Denmark and Greenland itself, a condition that clearly does not exist.
- THE US ALREADY HAS A MILITARY PRESENCE IN GREENLAND. SO WHY IS TRUMP SO INTERESTED IN THE ISLAND?
The United States already has a military presence in Greenland with Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule), a key strategic infrastructure for missile early warning, missile defense, and space surveillance. “For Washington, Greenland is a strategic asset,” explains Justina Budginaite-Froehly, a fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Europe Center, because its geographic position “places it directly over the GIUK Gap,” the corridor between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom, essential for monitoring Russian, and potentially Chinese, submarines entering the Atlantic.
She warns that focusing solely on the legal dimension is not enough: “Legality, alone, does not create security.” The real danger is not a formal annexation, but “the possibility of external powers exerting pressure on a strategically vulnerable area.”
“If Europe wants to ensure that no external power, neither the US, nor Russia, nor China, can realistically think it can exert pressure on Greenland, then it should focus less on protests and more on its strategic steps.” “Greenland is not for sale, but neither should it be left exposed. If Europe does not take responsibility for its security in the North, others will do so in its place, pursuing their own strategic priorities.”