Free Association of the United States with Greenland: a bad agreement

At a press conference on January 7, President-elect Donald Trump refused to rule out the use of military force to acquire Greenland. Previously, he had proclaimed that American ownership and control of the semi-autonomous island, part of the Kingdom of Denmark, was an absolute necessity. The new president also republished a recent article arguing the virtues of a U.S. takeover of the island and even days later sent Christmas greetings to the people of Greenland, whom the United States needs for national security reasons. All of this has reignited speculation that President-elect Trump will once again attempt to acquire Greenland. The previous Trump administration initially attempted to purchase the island in 2019.

This speculation must be taken seriously. It comes amid an ongoing debate among former Trump officials, who have focused on devising more realistic plans to acquire the island. Kaush Arha, Alexander B. Gray, and Tom Dans offered the most sophisticated proposal, suggesting that the United States should pursue a free association agreement with an independent Greenland, similar to the current agreement between Washington and a handful Pacific micro-nations such as Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. Under this arrangement, Greenland would gain independence from Denmark but offer the United States access to its territory in exchange for a guarantee of security and promises of economic and administrative support, such as large direct economic transfers. annual meetings, judicial and diplomatic services and a coast guard. . According to the authors, free association would benefit the United States because it would allow the stationing of American military personnel, give the United States a key source of essential minerals, and counter Chinese presence on the world's largest island.

However, continuing free association with Greenland would be a costly mistake. As I have previously explained in these pages, the United States is already achieving its geostrategic objectives in Greenland, while passing on the heavy bill of managing the island to Denmark. While proponents of free association accurately identify the three most important U.S. objectives in Greenland, maintaining military access to the island's territory, accessing essential minerals (such as rare earth elements), and avoiding the Chinese influence on the island, free association would not allow Washington to achieve these objectives. While this may be more realistic than trying to purchase the island, free association would provide no geostrategic benefits, while ensuring that the United States would incur new costs. It would also alienate Denmark, a NATO ally, which opposes the move. In short, pursuing free association would be bad business.

Free association is expensive

The Trump administration's attempt to purchase Greenland in 2019 was a strategic impasse that only led to unnecessary tensions with Denmark. Once the dust settled, the United States quickly abandoned this approach and instead began pursuing a cost-effective engagement strategy in Greenland.

The current U.S. engagement strategy builds on existing agreements and combines an effective public diplomacy effort, anchored at the U.S. consulate in Nuuk, Greenland's capital, with minor economic and political incentives to Greenland and Denmark in exchange for a local acceptance of American geostrategic ambitions. These incentives include ensuring that installation support services at the US Pittufik Space Station (formerly Thule Air Base) are provided by a local company at lucrative rates, as well as small support programs for the minerals, tourism and education sectors. Washington has not disclosed the total amount of these efforts, but, based on publicly available data, they are estimated to cost less than $50 million per year.

The US strategy also tacitly recognizes that interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Denmark, including the US investigation into the issue of Greenlandic independence, constitutes the third way in Danish-US relations. Most Greenlandic elites as well as the general public want independence from Denmark, and most Danish elites share the view that the island's future depends on its people. While Denmark is unlikely to prevent Greenland's independence if Nuuk wants to go it alone, Copenhagen considers any external interference in what it considers its internal affairs to be out of reach. As part of its engagement strategy, the United States has therefore stayed out of debates over the future status of Greenland and has sought to engage with Greenland only in a manner considered acceptable under the laws. and norms in force governing Danish-Greenlandic relations.

Free association, on the other hand, would involve touching that third rail by actively supporting Greenlandic independence and offering Greenland a better deal than Nuuk currently gets from Denmark. This would cause unnecessary tensions between the United States and one of its most loyal allies in Europe.

Free association would not only cause consternation in Copenhagen, but would also entail a considerable economic burden. Polls show that Nuuk would therefore only accept independence and free association with the United States if Washington at a minimum proposed replacing Denmark as Greenland's main source of administrative support and direct economic transfers worth at least $700 million per year. Free association would thus increase the price of American involvement in Greenland by more than 1,000 percent.

The United States is already getting what it wants

At the same time, free association would not help the United States achieve any of its three geostrategic goals.

First, the United States has had a military presence in Greenland for several decades. The island plays an important role in America's deterrence against global and regional threats. Radar and satellite facilities at Pittufik Space Base, the Department of Defense's northernmost installation, support missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance missions. While Greenland currently plays only a limited role in supporting maritime and air capabilities and operations in the wider Arctic and North Atlantic regions, such as anti-submarine operations against Russian forces, the island's strategic location could warrant greater U.S. military attention in the future. If the United States wants broader access than existing agreements allow, Greenland and Denmark have been receptive to Washington's preferences, especially if they grant them more political or economic incentives, the cost of which is not would represent only a tiny fraction of Denmark's current support for Greenland. It is therefore difficult to imagine that the United States would encounter significant reluctance to expand its current military presence if the need arose.

Second, U.S. companies do not currently require free association to mine critical minerals, including rare earth elements found in Greenland. In 2019, the United States and Greenland agreed to strengthen existing cooperation in the development of mineral resources. Greenland's Foreign Policy Strategy 2024 emphasized a strong interest in attracting direct investment and trade from like-minded partners such as the United States, particularly individual states such as the Alaska and those of the northeastern United States. Currently, Greenland's mining industry remains largely dormant due to a number of factors, including low prices on the global market, high costs associated with mining in the harsh conditions of the Arctic, heavy regulations and occasional local resistance from civil society groups. Free association would not remedy these problems.

Third, the United States aims to prevent a significant Chinese presence on the island and maintain Greenland's place within the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. This has already been achieved through the current structure, and free association would provide no tangible benefit. While Russian entities have shown little interest in establishing a presence in Greenland through investment or other types of cooperation, Chinese companies and research institutes have repeatedly attempted, unsuccessfully, to establish a presence between 2014 and 2018. The failure was largely due to Danish and American efforts. efforts to deny China. Beijing has since abandoned its Arctic ambitions in Greenland, and Chinese actors have made no major attempts to increase their influence on the island since 2019.

Stick to the current engagement strategy

The United States would gain nothing but additional expense and unnecessary tension with one of its close allies by pursuing free association with Greenland. In fact, free association would spoil a near-perfect arrangement for the United States, since Washington is already achieving its geostrategic goals, while leaving Denmark to foot the bill for running Greenlandic society. Abandoning the cheap and effective engagement strategy would be an unforced error that would only benefit America's adversaries.

Instead, the United States should continue its current efforts and work to find low-cost ways to further strengthen its ties with Greenland. The United States could invest in additional support programs aimed at cooperating with Greenland in areas such as tourism and education. To make it easier for U.S. mining companies seeking to work in Greenland, Washington could encourage new businesses by creating favorable loan programs or a special investment fund for Arctic mining. This would not only secure large supplies of minerals, but also bring the Greenlandic and American economies closer together. Finally, Greenland suggested the creation of a North American Arctic policy forum. Washington should support this initiative. Such a forum could be a place where Arctic countries and local governments in North America (such as Alaska and Nunavut), as well as organizations representing local and indigenous communities, could strengthen dialogue and cooperation.

There is still low-hanging, inexpensive fruit that can be picked to strengthen cooperation between Greenland, the United States and Denmark and thus secure U.S. interests in Greenland. Washington should stick to these cost-effective efforts rather than pursuing complicated projects like free association that will only make the United States worse off.

Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen is an associate professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, where he leads research at the Center for Arctic Security Studies. The opinions presented here are those of the authors and do not represent those of the Royal Danish Defense College or any other Danish government entity.

Image: Oliver Schauf via Wikimedia Commons

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos