There is an undeniable fact of life when it comes to the state of nations. It is that they are always in the state of flux and that their cultural, political, economic and actual physical boundaries change over time.

The reasons are many, but the principal one is due to the ravages and results of war. We in Europe are more keenly aware of this than our neighbors in North America, although the U.S. has seen its territory expand over time due not to colonialization but to outright purchases of land.

The U.S. bought the Danish West Indies islands from Denmark in 1917 for $25 million.

In 1867, it purchased Alaska for $7.2 million from Russia and before that, in 1854, the U.S. bought nearly 46,000 square kilometers from Mexico (the Gadsden Purchase) for $10 million which later became parts of the states of Arizona and New Mexico.

In 1803, the U.S. acquired over 2 million square kilometers of land from France for $15 million effectively increasing the size of the country by 50%.

Other treaties, some of which were the result of the spoils of war gave the U.S. land such as Florida, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Outright purchases of a foreign country's land were a rarity in Europe.

Land was often lost as the result of a defeat in a war or a treaty of mutual convenience. Since the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, the European map has changed dramatically and is still changing due to incursions by Russia into Ukraine, for example.

The fight to keep a country's sovereignty is often waged on the battlefield, but sometimes it is the result of financial pressures.

In the case of Greenland, an island slightly larger than Alaska, but with a population of just under 60,000, it has been under Nordic rule since the 14th century when it was joined at the hip to Denmark which also had dominion over Norway.

The actual colonialization process of Greenland began in earnest in the 18th century. Denmark formally declared sovereignty over Greenland in 1921. After winning a land claim in 1933 that was brought by Norway, Greenland was firmly in Danish hands until …

On April 9, 1940, Denmark was invaded and taken over by Nazi Germany and Greenland was left on its own, as an unoccupied territory of an occupied nation – placed in a very precarious position and subject to the possibility of seizure by a foreign power.

The U.S. stepped in, and a year later signed an agreement with Denmark to hand over the defense and control of Greenland after it "occupied" the country with a force of volunteers sent to protect it from occupation by Germany or other powers.

After the war, the Danish parliament ratified the agreement and began the work of negotiating leases with the U.S. 

The year 1951 was an important one for the U.S./Greenland relationship. Both signed a treaty which gave the the U.S. exclusive jurisdiction over defense areas within Greenland. It was at that point that Danish pragmatism ruled that the Danes' views of the U.S.-Denmark partnership and paved the way for an even closer relationship with the U.S.

Greenland has evolved into a geopolitical and strategic chess piece. But it is no longer a pawn on the board.

Instead, it is becoming more like a rook able to manipulate and form its own future now that it has the mobility and leverage that comes from its ability to hold a referendum on its relationship with Denmark.

While the average Greenlander probably isn't a student of geopolitics nor has he read the Art of War or other books about tactics and strategies, Greenlanders are not total isolationsists nor ignorant of the outside world.

They are a proud and simple indigenous people with long traditions and a symbiotic relationship with their natural surroundings. As such, they have a culture and way of life to preserve and protect. This would explain the sentiment of Greenland's leader, Prime Minister Múte Egede, who this past Wednesday announced a desire for the independence of the island.

And should the Greenlanders wish to integrate aspects of the modern world into their culture they can and will when and if the time and conditions are right.

They are well aware of why the world is interested in their country and I expect that they are somewhat conflicted by it.

Their political and cultural relationships with Denmark (and the United States) are longstanding ones. In 1979, Greenland attained home rule. In 2004, Greenland and the U.S. agreed to a modernization of the Thule Air Base. In 2008, Greenlanders voted by referendum for more autonomy from Denmark. In 2013, Greenland ended its 25-year ban on mining of radioactive materials. In 2023, Greenland finished its draft of its new constitution. It is still a draft and is being studied and was made possible by the Self Rule arrangements with Denmark adopted in 2009 which stated that Greenland is “free to initiate a preparatory constitutional process.”

However, should the leadership in Nuuk, which is Greenland's capital, vote on and pass into law any active alternative to the Danish constitution it would most likely be regarded by the Danish government as a first step toward secession.

According to Danish law, there can be only one Grundlov, or, constitution. Anything that deviates from that would be in contravention of the Danish/Greenlandic relationship and would endanger the annual Danish block grant of  money to Greenland, which presently pays for just over half of Greenland's public expenditures and represents 20% of its total economy.

The U.S., on the other hand, spends billions in Greenland for operations and maintenance services which include airfield operations, civil engineering, environmental management, food and health services, supply and fuel logistics, seaport, transportation, vehicle maintenance, and community and recreation services.

But what about the Greenlandic people? What do they want?

Besides the hard-core separatists, who do all they can to fan the flames of self-rule, the Greenlandic population is supportive of separation from Denmark, politically.

According to a poll cited by Arctic Today, about two-thirds of Greenlanders support the country achieving independence.

The really groundbreaking piece of news is that 43.5% of the 67.7% who support the vision of independence also believe that secession from Denmark will have “positive” or even “very positive” effects on Greenland’s economy.

Statistically, that translates into 32.4% of the total electorate. Among the 38.4% who say they would vote 'yes' to independence, even if it was to happen already tomorrow, a whopping 62.3% expect independence to bring also a better economy.

There is another interesting aspect of the new draft Greenland constitution and it is the establishment of "free association" status.

On an international level, free association is recognized by the United Nations as an acceptable governance form (a number of independent island states in the Pacific are freely associated with either New Zealand or the U.S., for example).

For a number of Greenlanders, free association has been high on the political agenda in the country for decades. For the Danes this is a varm kartoffel or hot potato issue and not on the front burner of public political discourse in Denmark, although Donald Trump's statement on the possible purchase of Greenland a few years back and reiterated recently has made it a popular issue for the Danish media to pursue.

Americans in the U.S. and those of us expats in Denmark, can expect the U.S./Denmark/Greenland nexus to be a topic of continuing conversation as more "bidders" come forward and show their hands.

One thing we must never forget, however, is that Greenlanders are a sovereign people with a long history and culture of which they are enormously proud, and it is incumbent upon all who would present a plan for future cooperation to come to the table with that in mind.

After all, real estate ownership comes with certain responsibilities, and in the case of an entire territory, it never affords the owners the right to ignore the culture of the neighborhood. That can never be for sale.

Stephen Helgesen is a retired career U.S. diplomat who lived and worked in 30 countries for 25 years during the Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush Administrations. He is the author of fourteen books, seven of which are on American politics and has written over 1,400 articles on politics, economics and social trends. He can be reached at: stephenhelgesen@gmail.com
 

Image: Pexels / Pexels License