Highlights
- The U.S. has historically secured strategic access to Greenland during World War II and the Cold War for military and geopolitical purposes.
- Greenland’s rare earth minerals represent a potential resource for reducing U.S. dependence on China’s critical mineral supply chains.
- Future engagement with Greenland requires a collaborative approach that respects local sovereignty and addresses environmental concerns.
In their op-ed for the Portland Maine Press Herald, Charles Norchi and Amanda Lynch argue that the United States must view Greenland as a partner rather than a geopolitical prize. They emphasize mutual respect and collaboration in navigating the island’s strategic importance. They highlight Greenland’s significance due to its Arctic location, rare earth mineral resources, and climate challenges, all while noting increasing competition from Russia and China.
The authors underline the need to align U.S. foreign policy goals with Greenland’s aspirations for independence and sustainable development, drawing on its historical resistance to foreign exploitation.
While the article effectively connects Greenland’s strategic role to global resource competition and U.S. national security, it assumes a natural alignment between U.S. and Greenlandic interests and does not fully address potential tensions, such as environmental concerns or Denmark’s role in Greenland’s governance. To strengthen their case, Norchi and Lynch could explore alternative U.S. strategies for Arctic engagement and incorporate more perspectives from Greenland’s local communities and Denmark.
And what about precedent for what Donald Trump may be proposing? Rare Earth Exchanges reviews the other times in history when the U.S.A. accessed Greenland for strategic purposes.
How the United States Gained Access to Greenland During World War II
During World War II, the United States secured access to Greenland through a diplomatic agreement with Denmark, which was under Nazi occupation at the time. This arrangement stemmed from strategic necessity and the unique geopolitical conditions of the war. When Germany occupied Denmark in April 1940, Denmark’s ability to govern Greenland was effectively nullified, creating a governance vacuum for the island.
Recognizing Greenland’s Arctic location as strategically vital, the U.S. moved to ensure its protection and utility for the Allied war effort.
In 1941, Danish envoy Henrik Kauffmann, (opens in a new tab) acting independently of the German-controlled Danish government, signed the Greenland Agreement with the United States. This agreement allowed the U.S. to establish military bases in Greenland to prevent the island from falling under German control.
Greenland’s location made it a key asset for monitoring the North Atlantic and securing transatlantic shipping routes. Its airbases became essential refueling and staging points for military aircraft, providing a critical defense for the Western Hemisphere against German advances.
The U.S. constructed several military installations on the island during the war, with Thule Air Base (opens in a new tab) emerging as the most significant. This Arctic defense outpost played a pivotal role in U.S. military strategy even after the war, as Greenland became central to NATO’s security framework.
However, the 1941 agreement was not without controversy. Kauffmann acted without approval from the Danish government in Copenhagen, raising questions about its legitimacy. Nonetheless, the agreement was later recognized as a critical measure for the Allied war effort and a pragmatic assertion of sovereignty over Greenland.
The U.S. access to Greenland during World War II marked a significant turning point in the island’s relationship with Denmark and the United States. It highlighted Greenland’s strategic importance in global geopolitics and set the stage for its enduring role in Arctic security and international relations.
On to the Cold War
During the Cold War, the United States solidified its access to Greenland through agreements with Denmark, turning the Arctic island into a critical outpost for monitoring and countering Soviet activities. The 1951 Greenland Agreement marked a pivotal moment in this partnership, formalizing U.S. rights to maintain and expand military installations on the island as part of NATO’s collective defense strategy. This arrangement built upon earlier World War II agreements but fully integrated Greenland into the broader framework of Cold War security.
Greenland’s location made it indispensable for Arctic surveillance, missile defense, and early warning systems. The U.S. expanded the Thule Air Base, originally constructed during World War II, into a hub for operations. It became a cornerstone of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (opens in a new tab) (BMEWS), which tracked Soviet missile activity and supported refueling and reconnaissance missions for the U.S. Air Force.
The cooperation between the U.S. and Denmark, a NATO member, was essential in countering Soviet influence. Denmark retained sovereignty over Greenland but allowed significant U.S. military activity under the 1951 agreement. However, this partnership was not without challenges. The expansion of Thule Air Base displaced many Greenlandic Inuit, leading to long-term grievances and eventual compensation claims. This highlighted tensions between military priorities and local populations.
Greenland’s proximity to the Soviet Union and its harsh Arctic environment made it a focal point for scientific and military experimentation. Projects such as ice core drilling advanced climate studies. At the same time, the U.S. explored ambitious plans like Project Iceworm (opens in a new tab), which aimed to establish a network of nuclear missile sites under Greenland’s ice sheet—though this was ultimately abandoned.
Throughout the Cold War, Greenland was crucial in maintaining Arctic dominance and deterring Soviet aggression. Today, this period’s legacy endures, with Thule Air Base continuing to serve as a key radar and satellite monitoring station. Greenland’s strategic importance during the Cold War laid the foundation for its ongoing significance in U.S. and NATO security strategies.
Does Trump have some Precedent and Rational?
The United States’ historical engagement with Greenland during World War II and the Cold War offers a strong precedent for pursuing strategic access to the island’s resources, including rare earth elements. During both periods, Greenland’s geostrategic location and natural resources were leveraged to support U.S. military and security objectives. Today, amid the pressing rare earth crisis—where China controls 90% of processing and magnet production—Donald Trump’s talk of expanding U.S. access to Greenland resonates with these historical patterns. However, its practicality and geopolitical implications warrant deeper examination.
From a geopolitical standpoint, securing access to Greenland’s rare earth minerals aligns with U.S. interests in reducing dependence on China, particularly for critical materials used in defense, energy, and technology sectors. Greenland’s vast reserves of rare earth elements could bolster the U.S. strategic stockpile, providing a buffer against supply disruptions and opening opportunities for developing a domestic processing and production industry. This aligns with past U.S. actions, such as securing Greenland for Arctic defense, by recognizing the island’s value in addressing systemic vulnerabilities in critical supply chains.
However, several factors complicate this vision. First, while access to Greenland’s mineral reserves could strengthen U.S. resource security, it does not address the core issue: the lack of domestic rare earth processing and magnet production. Without substantial investment in processing infrastructure, the raw materials extracted from Greenland would likely still need to be sent to China for refinement, perpetuating dependency. This highlights the necessity for long-term policies and significant investments to build a robust U.S. rare earth supply chain.
Second, Greenland’s political and environmental landscape poses challenges. The island’s push for greater autonomy and eventual independence from Denmark complicates U.S. access negotiations. Moreover, Greenland’s strict mining regulations, including bans on uranium mining, reflect strong local concerns about environmental impacts. These factors require a cooperative approach that respects Greenland’s sovereignty and addresses local and ecological problems, avoiding perceptions of exploitation.
In conclusion, while Trump’s proposal for U.S. access to Greenland’s rare earth resources has historical precedent and geopolitical logic, it must be part of a broader strategy. Securing access without addressing processing and production bottlenecks would have a limited impact. The U.S. must pair such efforts with significant investments in domestic rare earth capabilities, fostering a sustainable and independent supply chain. Additionally, a partnership-based approach with Greenland, rooted in mutual benefit and respect, would be the ideal pathway to achieving long-term strategic goals.
Daniel
You Might Also Like…