Transcription
I'll just start with a quote from Donald Trump for you. "We have to have green land. It's not a question of can we do without it, we can't."
What, how will that frame policy?
Well, I think the president's saying that Greenland is essential to US national security. And when he makes a statement like that, he's telling everyone in the United States government, I expect to have action taken to realize, uh, what I think is a national security imperative that Greenland have a closer relationship with the United States.
Yeah, I was going to say, what sort of action does that mean?
I think it can mean a number of different things. And I think we have to look short, medium, and long term. The bottom line is over the long term, Greenland needs to have some sort of closer tie to the United States. Does that mean it becomes a territory like Puerto Rico, like the Virgin Islands? Maybe. Uh, does that mean that over time we have some sort of, uh, compact, a free association like we do with islands in the Pacific? Um, where it is an independent sovereign state, but it has a very close defense relationship and economic relationship. I think that's a very good option. But the bottom line is President Trump is right. If we don't have a closer relationship with Greenland in the long term, China and Russia will.
Why does Greenland matter strategically?
Right? Well, it matters for the same reasons it's mattered for 150 years to us. It's about 1,200 miles, uh, from the east coast of the United States. During the Cold War, we had a significant presence in Greenland because Soviet submarines would come down through the gap between the UK, Iceland, and Greenland, and they'd threaten the east coast of the United States. Today, we have a space base in Greenland. Um, and there are some very sensitive space issues that affect US homeland security, uh, that have to do with Greenland's strategic location. Um, so taking kind of traditional security concerns, uh, sea, air, and then the new dimension of space. This is a direct threat to the US homeland if Greenland was ever under the influence of a foreign adversary. And with the Northwest Passage opening up due to changing climate, >> it'll be even more significant because there'll be more international trade that's going to go through those sea lanes and we, and the really, the entire world will have even more of an interest in making sure that the areas around Greenland are secure for commercial passage.
So even though Greenland feels so far away, it's and isolated, it's actually right on your doorstep?
It's right on our doorstep. And as commercial traffic increases, what happens in Greenland is not going to be confined to Greenland. It's going to have ripple effects all over the world.
Does Greenland have a say in it?
Of course, they have a say. And I think their sovereignty and their sovereign right to self-determination has to be first and foremost on everyone's minds. Um, but the good news for us is I think that what we offer as the United States is much more compelling than what the Russians and the Chinese have to offer. And I'm willing to put our system and what we offer up against Beijing and Moscow any day.
But Denmark says it's doing the job. They've put in another billion dollars in defense for the Arctic region.
They're saying, "Leave us alone."
Well, look, Denmark's finally, and I would say this is only because of President Trump, Denmark is finally getting serious about Arctic defense. Uh, they had not for decades, and now they are, and that's great. My concern is what happens when the Greenlanders get what they say they want. They say they want independence. And when they ultimately get independence, we're going to have to have a solution where an island of 56,000 people, uh, has some way to keep out bad guys like the Chinese and the Russians. And I think the solution to that is a closer relationship with Washington. Um, but again, this is going to have to be a conversation with them. But I think that's the best option on the table is a better relationship between us and Greenland.
But Denmark's not going to walk away from protecting or defending that part of the world.
Well, when ultimately Greenland's independent, I think it's going to be very much an open question about whether they still want their former colonial power to have a very, uh, close defense relationship. I, I think very much from what I hear and what I talk to Greenlanders about, I think they're going to be looking for new security arrangements other than with Copenhagen. And I think if that's the case, we need to be sure that that new security partner is US rather than Beijing or Moscow.
So if the US under Donald Trump goes ahead and buys Greenland, what does that look like?
Well, let's say that there's some agreement between Denmark and Greenland and the United States and Greenland becomes a closer part of the United States. I think one option, if it were to become a a territory or we call it an insular area of the United States, it could look something like the Virgin Islands, which we purchased from Greenland, uh, from Denmark in 1917. Um, where there's local self-government, uh, the United States manages foreign and defense policy. There's a legislature, there's a non-voting member of Congress. I mean, that would be a great situation if the Greenlanders wanted that.
If the US doesn't buy Greenland, what does it look like?
Well, I think if, if there's not a purchase, I'm looking out 10, 15 years at a potentially independent Greenland. And that's where I think this compact of free association idea is so compelling, where Greenland can have the best of both worlds. They get sovereignty. They could be a sovereign state with a vote in the UN. But we guarantee their defense and we support them economically to a certain degree. And I think that would solve our concerns from a security perspective and it would also bring them closer to us in a way that serves the interests of the people of Greenland.
You know, obviously you're aware that there is a, a very generalized response to that and that is, "Leave us alone."
Well, >> "We're a people. Stop talking about us like we don't count. Leave us alone."
Well, what I hear from the Greenlanders is not "Leave us alone," but "Let's have a conversation together about what our future together could look like." They want to be part of the conversation, as they should be. And they understand that a small, uh, developing entity of 56,000 people is going to have limited options on the global stage over the long term. And they're going to need a partner, whether it's the United States or someone else, to help them grow and develop and tap their natural resources and have the type of opportunities they deserve. And my position, and I think this is President Trump's position, is that partner needs to be the United States for both economic and security reasons.
Can you have an equal conversation when you've got one country that's got a population of less than 57,000 people up against the United States of America?
Look, the United States, uh, has, I think, shown over the many years all over the world, whether it's Pacific Islands, whether it's Africa, whether it's Southeast Asia, that we are the partner of choice for developing states because by and large, we respect sovereignty, we respect self-determination, we want to see, uh, free markets work for people of all, uh, ethnicities and all classes. And I think that's what the Greenlanders are looking for. And I can tell you, in President Trump's first term, when we opened a consulate in Nuuk, that was extremely well-received. So it's not a question of do the Greenlanders want less of the United States. They just want to have a conversation, uh, about what does that relationship look like over the long term. But when you have a potential partner telling you, "We're either going to buy it or take it," do they want to be in partnership with the United States?
I mean, that, that's not a friendly tone, is it?
You know, it's interesting when I hear people say the president talking about taking it. I listen to that comment and I hear it somewhat differently. I, I hear the president saying, um, obviously we're not going to take any option off the table if an adversary nation like Russia or China were to gain a foothold in Greenland. This is the Monroe Doctrine. This has been US policy for 200 years that if an adversary power gains strategic control in our hemisphere, we don't, we don't take any option off the table. So I heard him basically reiterating US policy going back 200 years. I, I don't think President Trump has any desire to, uh, do something militarily against, uh, obviously Denmark's been an ally of ours and fought alongside us in many wars. Uh, the people of Greenland have close ethnic ties with, uh, indigenous Americans. I, I think President Trump is simply saying if Beijing and Moscow want to try and get into Greenland and take advantage of the people there and the resources, they need to be very careful about that.
But you have a president who has failed to rule out economic or military coercion. That doesn't sound like a friendly partnership.
The president uses every tool in his toolkit to set the table for negotiations that get the United States closer to whatever he thinks our national interests are in that negotiation. He's also been very clear that Denmark is a close ally and he's been clear about the respect he has for the people of Greenland. So I think we have to take this holistically and look at where is the president trying to go, and I think where he is trying to take us is towards a relationship of mutual benefit for the people of Greenland and for the United States.
Do you regret or wish he spoke a different way, that he talked about it in a in a in a kinder way?
I don't, because I've been trying to get people focused on Greenland, uh, for almost a decade now. And President Trump, through his unique way of speaking, his unique way of of framing issues, has gotten the entire world focused on the strategic significance of Greenland. And no other American president could have done that except Donald Trump.
So where will it end in your view?
I think it's going to end with the people of Greenland ultimately getting independence from Denmark and having choosing, because that's the best option, a closer relationship with the United States of some kind because it's in their interest to do so. And I think what President Trump has done, similar to what presidents going back to the 1860s have done, is be very clear about the significance of Greenland for our national security, frame the issue in a very unique way. And now it's up to him and his successors to come up with ways for us to make this relationship click. Um, and I think that's what you're going to see over the next decade.
How much do you think it'll cost the United States?
I don't think it's going to cost us anything because I think ultimately, when we go through, uh, what I think geologists will tell you is very likely significant mineral wealth, Um, I think the people of Greenland, the people of the United States, and people all over the world are going to benefit from using American ingenuity and expertise to tap those resources and bring them to market. Um, and I think Greenland has, beyond minerals, tremendous untapped potential that we're going to be able to work with the Greenlanders to take, uh, to to bring to market. So, I think ultimately economically and strategically, this is going to be a win-win for everyone.
Right? So the Greenlanders are really providing the dollars that allows the United States to take over the country.
Well, I think the Greenlanders right now aren't seeing any dollars because those resources are trapped underground. The United States is the place where we have the most capability, uh, to help bring that to life, to take advantage of those mineral resources for their own development. And so I think, um, unless the Greenlanders want to see those resources remain in the ground for another thousand years, I think their best bet is to partner with us to help bring that to market and to raise the living standards of everyone in Greenland.
The, well, the Greenland government right now doesn't want those resources touched, especially where there's uranium mixed in with the rare earth minerals. They're saying, "Leave them in the ground."
Yeah. Well, look, it's a, it's a complicated issue and I think the first thing we have to do is get a handle on just what is exactly in the ground there. Um, we have never done the type of real geological survey that needs to be done to really understand, um, how much mineral wealth the Greenlanders are sitting on. And once we really understand that, I think we can have a better conversation with the people of Greenland about the environmental impacts, the cultural impacts, and what the potential economic benefits are. And I think those economic benefits could be life-changing.
An Australian mining company has has been looking at that area for nearly two decades. One reserve of it they valued at around 11 billion.
Yeah. Look, I think the estimates that I've seen that the US government, I believe, has seen are extraordinary. And, uh, this is where again, um, if you think about the future of Greenland, do you want a future where those minerals are, uh, taken out of the ground in a respectful, environmentally conscious, culturally sensitive way, which the United States has experienced doing, or do you want the Chinese to come in and do what they've done in Africa and the Pacific and Southeast Asia and focus on exploiting the population for their own purposes? I think it's a binary choice and I think I know which option I would like the people of Greenland to consider and which one I think ultimately they're going to choose.
So, is the talk about Greenland really about Greenland being a strategic player in the Arctic region or is it about the resources?
Well, to me, this is a historic issue that long predates, uh, any talk of of strategic minerals. To me, this is about, um, the very, the same reason that Franklin Roosevelt sent Marines to Greenland in 1940 because he was concerned about what if the Nazis were to occupy Greenland. This is the same reason we've been trying to buy Greenland five times under multiple presidents because of the strategic location, which is becoming even more strategic as the Arctic becomes more accessible. I think the strategic minerals piece just adds to how important this is for our interests.
You do understand though, don't you, that essentially when you talk to a lot of the Greenlanders, uh, and a lot of the information coming out of Greenland is they don't, they don't want, they they don't want you, they don't want China, they don't want Russia, they want to be independent?
Right?
Do they have a say?
They absolutely have a say. And I think that the choice that they're going to face, unfortunately, and this is a choice that's been faced by countries all over the world from the Solomon Islands to South Africa to Central Africa. Um, the choice is is pretty simple. A small developing state, uh, is going to be in the crosshairs of the Chinese Communist Party. It's the Chinese playbook and the choice they're going to have. And I think they should have sovereignty. I think they should have self-determination. Um, the question is how do they keep that sovereignty? And I know from examples all over the world that China is going to come and try and take away their sovereignty for strategic and economic purposes. And it's only the United States that has the ability to protect the interests of the people of Greenland. And I think we can do that working with them collaboratively because the choice is falling under Chinese colonialism. If they don't, if if they're not closer with us, they'll be under the Chinese colonial thumb.
Is it real concern for the Greenlandic people or is the concern broader?
Well, I think obviously the concern about China's behavior is global. Um, but when you think about where China could have the most dangerous influence in our hemisphere, given resources, given location, given small population size, I think Greenland poses a unique threat to our interests because of of the reasons I mentioned and why the Chinese have expressed so much interest in in Greenland. So when Donald Trump says he's not talking just about peace for the United States, but peace for the globe, you believe he's speaking the truth?
I believe that, uh, President Trump is is stating something that I think is going to define the 21st century, which is if we allow China to continue to expand into strategic locations all over the world, like they have in Australia's backyard, like they have in Africa, that is destabilizing for the peace and prosperity of the entire world. So I think what he's saying is when you have a location like Greenland that's so important and so strategic, we would be doing a disservice to the world if we allowed China to gain a foothold there.
So 3 months ago the rhetoric was bombastic, bullying, loud, obvious, attention seeking.
Uh, now we're not hearing much. What's going on?
Well, my sense is behind the scenes. This is how President Trump operates. He sets the table. He lays out his position. He brings, uh, all parties to the table. And I think conversations are going on right now, both within the US government and between the US, Greenland, and Denmark to come up with what the next steps in this are. Um, and we've already seen Denmark react, as you mentioned, by expanding its defense footprint, which we've been asking them to do for decades. They finally, because of President Trump, have chosen to increase their defense spending in the Arctic. Uh, and I think we're going to see additional conversations between Copenhagen, Washington, and Nuuk about what's next. Um, and again, this is the brilliance of the Trump Art of the Deal strategy is only this type of of rhetoric, only this type of forceful presidential action can bring people to the table to talk about these difficult issues.
Will it impact things on the ground in terms of the issuing of licenses for exploration and and exploitation for actual mining? So will the Australians who are stymied at the moment because there's a government that says no to this particular mining, will that change, do you think, because of Donald Trump?
Well, I think in the short term, probably not. But the the long-term issue is what's the future of Greenland politically, right? And I think if you're a mining company, if you're trying to get into the Greenland market, you need to know that there is a stable, secure future for your investment. And I think the only way, with particularly with China and Russia lurking in the background, the only way for Western companies to have confidence in their investments is to know that Greenland's going to have a closer relationship with Washington. And I think that is the future that's going to bring prosperity to the people of Greenland.
And how far away is that future?
I think it could be closer than people realize. I think President Trump, uh, I would not be surprised if by the end of his term we have some sort of framework, uh, for a longer-term closer tie with with Greenland. Um, I think I hope and I think that we could have a road map by the time President Trump leaves office, uh, to bring us on the path to a much closer association.