President Trump said this week that the U.S. will have “total access” to Greenland and that he’s formed the framework of a future deal.
The details are still unclear, but Trump has backed off on threatening tariffs against Europe and said he doesn’t plan to take Greenland by force. This comes after Trump renewed his demand to acquire Greenland earlier this week.
Former Democratic Congressman Richard Swett served as an ambassador to Denmark under the Clinton administration. He spoke with NHPR’s All Things Considered host Julia Furukawa about the relationship between the U.S. and Denmark, and where he sees the Greenland deal going.
Transcript
The U.S. and Denmark already have a framework for U.S. military presence in Greenland. What does that look like?
It was established in 1951. It really gives the United States broad latitude for developing military bases on the island. We have one remaining base in Thule, which is now called Pituffik [Space Base]. But it's right up on the Arctic Circle. It watches for incoming missiles from Russia. And that is the one base that I think Trump has sort of focused on. That would be expanded and created into a “Golden Dome," as he calls it, over—not so much the island of Greenland, but to intercept any missiles that are coming in from Russia that would be aimed at the United States.
Can you explain the extent of the role Greenland has played in U.S.-Denmark relations?
Well, first of all, the U.S. and Denmark have been allies forever. Denmark was the second country to recognize the new country of the United States, and we have had a continuous relationship with them. Some would say it's the longest. Some might argue that point. But the reality is that there has never been a breach in that relationship. It's a very good one.
Greenland has been a part of Denmark forever. I visited Greenland twice. Once to see the space station. The other time was to see or celebrate with the Danes the thousand-year celebration of Christianity coming to the island. That was a thousand years ago, and that's how long Greenland has been a part of either the Danes or the Scandinavian countries more broadly.
1951 was when an agreement was signed with Denmark for the use of Greenland. Since then, and even since I was ambassador to Denmark, Greenland has become more and more independent. At this point, my interest and concern would be to see that the Greenlanders are as much a part of this negotiation as the Danes are and the U.S. is.
The idea of the U.S. acquiring Greenland isn't entirely new. Remind us why the U.S. has this interest.
Well, it has always been an interest of the United States. As far back as 1910, we made our first offer to purchase it. I think President Truman offered $100 million to purchase it in 194[6].
In 1917, we did purchase the Danish West Indies and that became the U.S. Virgin Islands. So we've done real estate deals with Danes, not maybe in the same fashion or form as President Trump, who is a real estate developer himself, but I do think this is not a new conversation topic. It's not a new idea.
And what would you say, exactly, are the U.S. security needs in the Arctic region?
The resources that exist there — and I have no idea what exists under the mild deep ice that covers Greenland — but there are rare minerals that are important. There are shipping routes that, as they become more available, more open, could be utilized by Russia, by China. And it might be to our disadvantage that they have that availability. So I think those are the two primary things.
And then of course, we've talked about the “Golden Dome” that would stop the missiles from coming through. So we're very interested in being able to work in Greenland to provide the kind of technology that will enable the U.S. to to stop this stuff from coming over the horizon. Some say that the 1951 agreement makes available all kinds of things that the U.S. could do that would satisfy those concerns. But we'll see how the negotiation goes, whether there's still more that the president is willing or wants to extract from the Greenlanders and the Danes in those discussions.
You served as an ambassador to Denmark under the Clinton administration, and you still have many ties to the country.
I do.
What have you been hearing from members of the Danish government or civil society there?
Well, I think the first thing is, many people in the political world tend to overreact to things that the president says. If you understand his mentality, if you read his book, it's all very broadly and clearly explained that he will start with an extreme position and negotiate from there. Having said that, I mean, it is not a diplomatic way to begin a discussion. I think that it could do long-term damage only if those who were offended choose to remain so. But I think that when things get down to the short strokes, you begin to have more credible discussions.
I think part of what he wants to accomplish is that he controls the news cycle for whatever period of time people choose to react to what he's saying. And so this is something that ultimately doesn't have major implications or detrimental implications on the long [term] scale, but on the short term, it gets him a lot of attention.
Well, in the long term, where do you expect this deal to go?
It will probably stay within the 1951 agreement. It will follow the different articles that talk about the U.S. being able to build multiple bases on the island [and] multiple technologies for defense purposes.
I think the relationship with Denmark will — actually it can't get much better, but it will be stronger and better because of all of the discussion that's going on here and the value that this holds for both countries. What I know of the Danes is that they are serious and responsible allies. And they know that they benefit [from] a good relationship with the United States. And the United States understands that it needs to treat its allies with respect.
