Greenland and the Legacy of the British Empire

To understand Greenland’s significance to the United States - and, perhaps, the Trump administration’s renewed interest in purchasing it - you have to understand the British Empire’s changing role as the United States developed into a world power.

The United States first seriously looked at purchasing Greenland - and not only Greenland, but Iceland and the Danish West Indies* as well - in 1867, just after the Civil War and at about the same time as Seward’s purchase of Alaska. The British Canadian colonies, in part due to increased tensions with the United States during and after the Civil War, had just consolidated into a confederation. (In anticipation of today’s tensions, one American move that antagonized the Canadians was the cancellation of a free-trade deal.) The purchase of Alaska met a mixed reception in Britain, with The London Times noting that “America has only bought what belonged to Russia, and no Englishman ever dreamt that Russia would part with it to us.” It may have helped that, at the time, Russia was at least as much of a rival to Britain as the United States.

The purchase of Greenland and Iceland, had it gone through, would have been a much greater threat to British interests. American control of both Greenland and Alaska would encircle Canada, and American control of both Greenland and Iceland would allow them to dominate the shipping lanes between Western Europe and North America. Fortunately for Anglo-American relations, Alaska was enough of a real-estate deal for Congress, which balked at the purchase.

Denmark stayed neutral in World War I, but fell to a Nazi invasion shortly after the outbreak of World War II. Given its strategic location, the United States could not ignore Greenland and occupied it (and Iceland) even before Pearl Harbor. After the war, the Americans kept bases in Greenland, which remain to this day, and again made overtures about purchasing it.

Greenland wasn’t the only strategic North Atlantic territory that almost became part of the United States in the 1940s. Newfoundland had refused to join the Canadian confederation when it was founded in 1867, and remained a separate British colony, and later dominion, until the Great Depression forced it to go back under direct British rule in 1934. Newfoundland’s economic situation dramatically improved with the outbreak of World War II, which brought American bases and money to the island. This naturally increased pro-American sentiment, which led to speculation that the solution to Newfoundland’s chronic financial problems might be annexation by the United States. This once again raised the specter of American encirclement of Canada, and the British and Canadians arranged to have Newfoundland incorporated into Canada in 1949.

After World War II, the United States had an opportunity to claim new territory in both Greenland and Newfoundland. With NATO in its infancy, though, and Great Britain still a major power, the Americans decided that keeping the territories in Danish and Canadian hands would meet their strategic needs without driving away allies. What might have changed this calculation? The British navy is not what it used to be; the entire fleet is now smaller than the task force sent to reclaim the Falkland Islands in 1982. Neither are Britain’s ties to Canada; the British government has been conspicuously absent from the recent diplomatic rows between the Trump administration and Canada.

Still, Denmark and Canada have been staunch allies of the United States, sending troops to the Global War on Terrorism and backing NATO’s efforts in Ukraine. If Greenland is left to its own devices, though, pro-independence sentiment could give the United States another government to contend with. Polls show most Greenlanders desire independence, but are concerned about its potential effect on the standard of living. To see what might be a worst-case scenario for Greenlandic independence, look to the Republic of Ireland. Clinging to historic resentments toward the British, the Irish have refused to join NATO (which didn’t prevent the president of Ireland from recently criticizing the alliance’s spending buildup) and have become one of Europe’s leading advocates of the Palestinian cause. It’s one thing for Ireland, a historically neutral nation on the fringe of Europe, to indulge in anticolonial and anti-Western sentiment; it would be much more threatening for an independent Greenland to do so in a much more strategic location, particularly if it leads to overtures to Russia or China.

The American relationship with Greenland has always been in the shadow of our relationship with Great Britain, first as rival, then as ally. As Britain’s role in the world is not what it once was, our stance in Greenland and elsewhere in the North Atlantic is changing to reflect our needs.

*These would eventually be purchased; they’re now the U.S. Virgin Islands.