Reconciling US Needs vs. Danish Claims

In the fall of 1998, I traveled to Denmark to take up my duties as the American Ambassador in Copenhagen. Often referred to as the “Fairytale Kingdom,” courtesy of its native son, Hans Christian Andersen, Denmark is a remarkable country that has been an exceptional ally of the United States for well over 200 years. The Danes have built a nation that combines Viking valor with a deep sense of duty to be one’s brother’s keeper. The admirable character of the Danish people was perhaps best exemplified when it became the only country in Europe to rescue virtually its entire Jewish population through a daring evacuation to neutral Sweden under the very noses of their Nazi occupiers. Their courage and decency during that moment of testing will continue to testify to the Danish character down through the generations.

Greenland as the most contentious Danish possession

My first official trip outside of Denmark proper was to visit the Thule Air Base, now known as the Pituffik Space Base. This impressive facility was America’s crucial “Top of the World” Arctic base, which served as our nation’s early missile warning and missile defense base from the 1950s onward. Of course, I could not help but be impressed and amazed by this first visit to Greenland. This vast land, the largest island in the world, has now been thrust into a roiling global debate over the current administration’s determination to “acquire” Greenland.

This is not the first time in our history that America has looked longingly at Greenland. Secretary of State Seward expressed an interest in purchasing Greenland in 1867; the idea was floated again in 1910, and after World War II, President Truman formally offered to buy the island for $100 million. Obviously, none of these initiatives came to fruition, but President Trump – ever the developer at heart – seems more determined than his predecessors to add this enormous property to America’s real estate portfolio.

I would like to add my voice to the many others who have urged the administration to think honestly about our actual security needs in the Arctic region and how they can be met without intimidating and alienating one of our stalwart allies and friends.

Can we get what we need without actual ownership of Greenland?

President Trump has spoken credibly about the threats posed by Russia and China in the Arctic region – threats to shipping lanes and, more importantly, to our missile defense.

Indeed, the Danish Foreign Minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, acknowledged as much when he said following his White House meetings, “We definitely share the concern that [the] Arctic is not any longer a low-tension region.”

I am confident that our security needs in Greenland can be met under the expansive authority of the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement. Denmark has made it clear that it would not oppose a significant expansion of America’s military assets in Greenland, which could include naval and air facilities. Denmark has clearly signaled that it is open to addressing all of America’s security needs, and history demonstrates that the Danes would be excellent partners in this regard.

I am equally confident that the government of Greenland would welcome the tremendous economic benefits that would accrue to Greenlanders by joining forces with the United States to develop their impressive natural resources. Greenland is part of North America – it could make a lot of sense to include Greenland in a revised USMCA treaty. The bottom line is that everything that America needs to have happen can happen while respecting the centuries-long relationship between Denmark and Greenland.

Comparing Danish Greenland to Bathsheba

I was in Greenland again in the year 2000 to mark the 1,000^th anniversary of Christianity’s arrival in Greenland. As I reflect on that memorable occasion, I am reminded of the powerful parable in the Bible in which the prophet Nathan tells King David about a rich man who steals a beloved lamb from his less powerful neighbor to feed it to a visiting traveler. The King is outraged by the selfish and bullying behavior of the rich man and demands that he face justice. But the king is brought up short when the prophet tells him, “You are that man.”

King David’s sin was stealing the beautiful Bathsheba by orchestrating the death of her husband, Uriah, but his character flaw was his thoughtless greed and his highhanded abuse of his power and privilege. Let us hope that America emulates that brave young David who stood up to Goliath, not the compromised King who wrongly took something that did not belong to him.

Editor’s Note

The views that any contributor expresses are always that contributor’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those of CNAV. And yes, CNAV disagrees with Ambassador Swett, primarily because he does not understand, much less agree with, civilizational thinking.

Treaties are only as good as the consistency of attitude between the rulers who make them, and their respective successors. Furthermore, though the Danes did evacuate their Jewish population, those same Danes surrendered to the Nazis to begin with, and offered no resistance. Finally, that Greenland is a Danish possession is an accident of a centuries-old trade between Norway and Denmark. And also because President Harry S. Truman was not made of such stern stuff as is his present successor. But CNAV cannot expect Ambassador Swett, Democrat that he is, to understand any of that.

Of course, at time of preparation of this article for publication, a framework agreement between the U.S. and NATO, concerning the disposition of Greenland, now exists.

Terry A. Hurlbut, Editor.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.