Why Greenland should join Canada, not the US – Richard Mills

2025.01.28

A background

Greenland is located in the North Atlantic Ocean adjacent to the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. About 80% of Greenland is ice cap that can be up to 3 km thick. Approximately one-twentieth of the world’s ice and one-quarter of the Earth’s surface ice is found in Greenland. The ice-free zone around the ice cap is up to 300 km wide and covers an area of 410,000 km² (the area of Germany is 357,000 km).

Norsemen settled on the uninhabited southern part of Greenland in the 10th century.

“The descendants of the Vikings had persevered in their North Atlantic outpost for almost 500 years, from the end of the 10th century until the mid-15th century. The Medieval Warm Period had made it possible for settlers from Norway, Iceland and Denmark to live on hundreds of scattered farms along the protected fjords, where they built dozens of churches and even had bishops.” — Günther Stockinger, ‘Abandoned Colony in Greenland: Archaeologists Find Clues to Viking Mystery’

Greenland has been inhabited, on and off, by Arctic peoples for up to 5,000 years. The Thule are the prehistoric ancestors of the current Greenlandic Inuit population. They left Alaska about 1,000 AD and arrived in Greenland via dogsleds (usually made of driftwood with whalebone runners) and umiaks (large whaling and traveling boats constructed with a frame of walrus ribs covered with walrus hide), in the 13th century.

The Norse colonies had disappeared by 1500 AD, beaten by a cool climate turned much colder by the Little Ice Age — a period of cooling extending from about 1350 to roughly 1850.

According to radio-carbon dating of plant material it was almost the geological equivalent of turning off a light switch. Between 1275 and 1300 AD summers suddenly turned very cold, seas normally open froze over and glaciers started their inexorable advance. Between 1430 and 1455 AD the cold intensified substantially.

Contact was re-established between Scandinavia and Greenland in the early 18th century and Denmark established rule over Greenland.

In 1979, Denmark granted Home Rule to Greenland. In 2008, Greenland voted to transfer more power from the Danish royal government to the local Greenlandic government. This became effective the following year. The 2009 Act on Greenland Self-Government gave Greenlanders authority over a number of new sectors including mineral resource extraction.

Copenhagen remains constitutionally responsible for Greenland’s foreign, defense and security policy.

As mentioned approximately 80% of Greenland is covered by ice, with the exposed area forming a fringe around the coast. These ice-free coastal areas — geological terrain that is an extension of the Canadian Shield — expose numerous mineral belts that are highly prospective for gold, lead, zinc, uranium, molybdenum, copper, tantalum and niobium, iron ore, nickel, several forms of industrial minerals, platinum group elements, diamonds, cobalt, rubies and rare earth elements.

As demand pushes up the prices of energy and minerals, finding new sources of supply is crucial.

The combination of a stable political and regulatory landscape, global warming, thawing Arctic sea lanes, and large mineral reserves have made ‘Kalaallit Nunaat – Country of the Greenlanders’ an increasingly attractive location to look for minerals.

The population of Greenland is 56,865 with 19,783 inhabitants living in the capital Nuuk (formerly Godthab). The majority of Greenland’s population live in towns along the fjords in the southwest of the country where the climate is relatively mild.

There are no roads between the towns on the coast, so people travel by airplanes, helicopters or by boat.

Greenland is far from financially self-sufficient — currently there is only revenue from fishing and a little tourism; there is no manufacturing sector.

Half of the Self-Rule administration’s revenue is derived from an annual block grant from Denmark. According to the International Trade Administration, Greenland’s GDP was estimated at USD$3.24 billion in 2021. Denmark provides Greenland roughly $548 million a year which accounts for approximately 20% of its GDP and more than half of the public budget.

A shortage of labor and the lack of infrastructure are the most formidable challenges facing the country. Both are huge stumbling blocks in the country’s quest for self-sufficiency and financial independence by utilizing its natural resources.

The benefits from the country’s emerging mining industry will include:

• Employment and job training for some of the highest paying jobs in the country. Provide jobs in rural areas of the country with involvement of local laborers and local companies.
  
• Education.
  
• Infrastructure improvements in cities and remote areas that remain long after each mine has shut down.
  
• Financial independence from Denmark, significant tax revenues or royalties for government.

• Business and investment opportunities.

Mines need their own power plants and transportation facilities such as runways, roads, power plants and port facilities.

Greenland, with a population of just under 57,000 and a workforce of only 36,000, is unable to provide the necessary labor to tackle its infrastructure issues on anything but a small scale.

Trump’s Greenland bluster

President-elect Trump has said he might like to take over Greenland, and has publicly mused about making Canada the “51^st state” and returning the Panama Canal to the United States. (the canal was turned over to Panama on Dec. 31, 1999)

It’s not the first time the United States has coveted the world’s largest island. Back in 2019, Trump offered to buy Greenland, telling the Wall Street Journal that he saw it as a “major real estate deal.” However, the idea was quickly shelved by Danish Prime minister Mette Frederiksen, who called it absurd” and said “Greenland is not for sale.”

Greenland’s strategic location close to Russia and its rich mineral deposits made it an acquisition target by President Andrew Johnson when he bought Alaska from Russia in 1867.

In 1946, President Harry Truman offered to buy the island for $100 million.

Two days after Trump’s victory in November, a loyal supporter, Congressman Mike Collins, posted on X an image of the Republicans’ winning map for 2024 and added Greenland painted in Republican red and with the caption “Project 2029”.

According to opencanada.org, Trump just before Christmas wrote on his Truth Social media platform, “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”

Symbolizing the seriousness of Trump’s statement, his son Donald Jr. visited Greenland on Jan. 7.

According to Statista,

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Arctic has been considered a politically neutral zone, marked by the peaceful international cooperation of scientists. But as the Arctic ice melts and more land and sea becomes accessible, opportunities for resource extraction and maritime trade routes are opening up, making it increasingly attractive to vying global powers, with some observers questioning confidence in its stability.

There are two reasons why Trump is coveting Greenland: its strategic location and its natural resources.

According to Al Jazeera, Greenland offers the shortest route from North America to Europe. This gives the US a strategic upper hand for its military and its ballistic missile early-warning system.

The US has expressed interest in expanding its military presence in Greenland by placing radars in the waters connecting Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom. These waters are a gateway for Russian and Chinese vessels, which Washington aims to track.

While the US has a base on Greenland, called Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule), it is unlikely to be invaded by the US Army since through association with Denmark it is part of NATO. If the US attacked, the rest of NATO would be forced by its constitution to come to Greenland’s aid.

While taking Greenland by force appears unlikely at this point, there have been discussions about the US offering Greenland a Compact of Free Association. Opencanada.org writes:

Under a typical COFA agreement, the US provides for defence, funding grants, and access to US social services for citizens of COFA territories. In return, the U.S. is allowed land for military bases and to station troops, plus exclude other militaries from entering any COFA designated territory.

In October 2024, just prior to Trump’s election victory, three political operatives from the Trump camp suggested in the conservative magazine ‘The National Interest’ that it was time for a U.S.-Greenland free association agreement. One of the three authors of the article, Alexander Gray, was chief of staff for Trump’s National Security Council for a while and today is affiliated with the American Foreign Policy Council, a conservative think-tank. 

In a recent interview with Martin Breum, a Danish journalist and expert in Arctic affairs, Gray said that it was important to take early action, as a COFA would take time to negotiate. He also offered several reasons why the U.S. should go ahead: Russia’s military mobilisation in the Arctic, China’s increased and significant ambitions in the region, the existence of important deposits of critical minerals in Greenland, and that geographically Greenland is part of North America. In the interview, Gray stressed that he was not speaking on behalf of Trump’s team, but according to him Greenland and the North Atlantic must become an important priority in Trump’s security policy to deal with the possibility of missiles passing over Greenland.  

It was Gray’s view that a COFA would respect Greenland’s sovereignty and at the same time ensure generous economic support for education, health services, and infrastructure. The deal would also give the U.S. control of Greenland’s security and provide a robust military presence with troops on bases on the world’s biggest island.

How is this being viewed in Greenland?

Opencanada.org notes that Greenland’s parliamentary election is being held in the spring and that Trump’s renewed interest in purchasing Greenland will become part of the electoral debate.

While the Danish prime minister has rejected the idea of Greenland becoming part of the US, stating that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders”, the fact is that since 2009, Greenland has the right to declare independence through a referendum.

Significantly, Greenland was the first country to leave the EU, in 1985.

Its Prime Minister Mute Egede has said that “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale,” but he has also called for Greenland’s independence, adding “We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.”

Reuters reported on Jan. 13 that Egede said his government was looking for ways to cooperate with the United States and that it was ready to start a dialogue with Trump’s incoming administration, but stressed it would be up to it to decide how it should proceed.

Opinion polls show that Greenlanders favor independence but only if its current social welfare system is maintained, based on Denmark’s annual block grant.

Canada and Greenland

Arguably, Greenlanders would be much better served through an association with Canada, not the US.

Opencanada.org notes that in December 2024, Canada published its Arctic Foreign Policy — an update to the 2019 Arctic and Northern Policy Framework.

Citing several international developments including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China’s search for greater Arctic governance, the document emphasizes the need for deeper collaboration with the US and the five Nordic countries, all members of NATO.

The policy also acknowledges that more emphasis should put on Arctic indigenous peoples. Recommendations included the appointment of an Arctic ambassador and a new consulate in Nuuk.

Before we get into the reasons why it would be advantageous for Greenland to join Canada, let’s explain why hitching its wagon to the United States would not be in its best interests.

First, Greenland is unlikely to get the political representation it deserves, or might expect to receive, due to its small population. At just under 60,000 people, Greenland is barely a tenth that of Wyoming, currently the least populous state. It seems fair that Greenland should get a member or two of Congress, but would it even get a senator?

The more likely scenario is that Greenland would become a US territory without statehood, such as Puerto Rico and a handful of small tropical islands such as Guam. The example of Puerto Rico is reason enough to be wary of such a political association.

Last fall at a Trump rally in New York, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe referred to Puerto Rico as “literally a floating island of garbage”. Trump himself has called Puerto Rico “dirty” and reportedly suggested trading the US territory for Greenland, according to Politico.

Puerto Ricans cannot vote in presidential elections, nor do they have equal access to federal programs such as Medicaid.

After Hurricane Maria devasted the territory in 2017, the former Trump administration withheld billions of dollars in federal aid funding. The hurricane knocked out power to parts of Puerto Rico for nearly a year and killed almost 30,000 people. The funding didn’t start flowing until the Biden administration took over federal recovery efforts, Politico writes.

In contrast, the Canadian federal government knows how to administer territories (we have three northern territories, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) and each territory is treated as an equal with the 10 provinces. If Greenland were to join Canada, it would most likely become the country’s fourth territory.

The federal government supports the territories through transfer programs — six are named by Google AI — and has devolved greater authority to territorial governments and provided Territorial Formula Financing (TFF) to cover the costs of delivering essential public services in remote northern areas.

A recent op-ed in The Financial Post says territorial funding currently costs CAD$5 billion a year, and points out that incorporating Greenland into TFF would almost certainly provide Greenlanders more support than Denmark’s current annual block grant of just under CAD$1 billion. Five times as much support, to be exact.

Moreover, Canada is closer to Greenland than Denmark and shares a land border on Hans Island. Existing ports, airfields and other facilities in Newfoundland & Labrador and Nunavut could help to serve Greenland and vice versa, the op-ed adds.

According to Policy Options, Canada has at least three interests in increasing ties with Greenland. First is economic security, because Canada, like the US, wants to be less dependent on Chinese supply chains, especially critical minerals.

The coming critical minerals trade war — Richard Mills

Second is regarding North American security: Securing Canadian airspace and sea lanes will focus more on Greenland as the Arctic sea ice recedes and more ships ply northern waters. The U.S. has led this relationship since the Second World War, but Canadian fighter jets regularly fly out of the U.S. Pituffik Space Base in northern Greenland. 

Third is that co-operation with Greenland advances indigenous reconciliation (discussed below).

While Trump argues the US needs Greenland for aerospace security, Greenland joining the Canadian federation would fully integrate it into the NORAD defences, which stretch across Canada’s existing Arctic territories.

And how is this for irony?

Confederation arose when Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia banded together in the face of tariffs and other threats from the U.S. The most recent addition was Newfoundland and Labrador, which joined in 1949 to fully access Canada’s nearby economy, infrastructure and public services. In the face of renewed threats from south of the border, we should extend the same opportunity to Greenland.

Greenland wants to develop its economy through mining, so what better country to join with than Canada, a leader in mining and mineral exploration? The majority of the world’s junior mining companies are headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia. Canadian miners and explorers have the technical know-how and the financial wherewithal to develop Greenland’s vast mineral deposits into working mines.

Canadian companies have extensive experience operating Arctic mines such as the Ekati diamond mine, the Mary River iron ore mine, and Agnico Eagle’s Meadowbank and Meliadine gold operations.

Most have impact and benefit agreements that outline how the mine will benefit the local Inuit and aboriginal groups, including employment, training and business opportunities.

The Inuit

As mentioned at the top, Canada and Greenland share important cultural connections. The latter is predominantly (about four-fifths) Inuit, while Canada is home to the world’s largest Inuit population.

Since 1982, Canada’s constitution has recognized Inuit aboriginal rights — something Inuit Greenlanders would be unlikely to receive as a US state or protectorate.

The Financial Post article observes that Greenland is almost exactly the same size as Nunavut: Greenland’s population is larger than any single Canadian territory’s but smaller than any two combined. Greenland could easily fit into Confederation as a fourth territory.

A similar-themed Globe and Mail article notes that By partnering with Canada, Greenland could achieve economic self-reliance while preserving its cultural and environmental heritage.

The piece by McGill University professor Bart Édes states that Benelux, a regional cooperation agreement between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg could serve as the model for a potential Canada-Greenland partnership.

Édes describes an economic union with Greenland as one without trade barriers, with aligned economies fostering greater economic cooperation:

They would also adopt a common market, shared regulations, and replace the anachronistic Danish krone with the Canadian dollar. Citizens of the two countries would have the right to move, reside, study and work anywhere within the union…

Last year, the Inuit-owned airline Canadian North launched a seasonal route between Ottawa and Nuuk via Iqaluit, Nunavut’s largest city and seat of government. Indeed, Greenland and Arctic Canada have become increasingly connected by shipping routes and air travel, enabling the exchange of goods, ideas, and people…

Édes reiterates what was said above about mining, with Greenland’s plentiful untapped resources complementing Canada’s established expertise in resource management.

Other areas of synergy include fisheries and tourism. In conclusion, writes Édes,

Greenland’s path to independence brings opportunities. While the country has immense resource potential, its economy remains underdeveloped and heavily reliant on the generosity of its benefactors on the Old Continent. An economic union with Canada would provide Greenland with the tools to diversify its economy and build a sustainable foundation for long-term growth.

By joining forces, Greenland can benefit from Canada’s established financial systems, trade networks, and infrastructure expertise. Canadian investment in Greenland’s ports, roads, and energy projects would unlock economic opportunities while creating jobs and improving quality of life. For Canada, this partnership would open doors to a new market and strengthen its strategic presence in the Arctic.

The Arctic has become a region of global significance, with climate change, resource competition, and geopolitical tensions reshaping its future…

One of the most compelling arguments for an economic union is the opportunity to empower Indigenous communities on both sides of the Davis Strait. The Inuit and other Indigenous groups have historically faced marginalization, but a partnership focused on cultural preservation and economic inclusion can reverse this trend.

Promoting mining

Greenland’s push to develop its mineral potential is more than just talk. In February 2024 the country released an Arctic strategy, then followed that up in March with a presence at the annual PDAC mining conference in Toronto.
According to Policy Options,

Greenland’s Arctic strategy has key goals for its relationship with Canada. It wants more human mobility, trade and communication. It wants to engage more across Northern Canada, especially with Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland across Yukon, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, northern Quebec and Labrador. Mining and education are two of its priorities.  

The minerals

A Reuters Fact Box article states that three of Greenland’s biggest deposits are in the southern Gardar province. Companies seeking to develop rare earth mines there include Energy Transition Metals and Neo Performance Metals. Kvanefjeld is home to one of the world’s largest undeveloped deposits of rare-earth elements outside of China.

Zero Hedge reports Greenland has 38.5 million tons of rare earth oxides, massive uranium deposits, vast oil and gas reserves, precious metals and some of the world’s largest freshwater reserves.

Occurrences of graphite and graphite schist have been reported from various locations on the island. Most copper deposits have seen only limited exploration, with the northeast and central-east areas thought to be of particular interest.

Greenland’s Mineral Resources Authority says traces of nickel accumulation are numerous, and zinc is found in the north in a geologic formation that stretches for more than 2,500 km.

Known deposits of titanium and vanadium are in the southwest, the east and south, tungsten is found mostly in the central east and northeast, and uranium is mined as a byproduct of rare earths at the Kuannersuit rare earths project — although the project has been halted since 2021 when uranium mining was banned.

Conclusion

Greenland is being pulled in the direction of the United States by the new Trump administration but the stronger magnetic force is the one attracting Greenland to Canada.

The two countries share important cultural ties specifically in relation to their high Inuit populations and an Arctic lifestyle revolving around nature, hunting and fishing, and small northern communities.

Greenland’s vast resource wealth could be tapped by junior resource companies mostly based in Vancouver, which combined with Toronto, has a large pool of venture capital available to move projects forward. Some of the world’s top mining companies are Canadian.

Greenlanders would be welcomed into the federation with full territorial status, entitling them to federal grants and transfer payments. They would immediately get full medical coverage and additional supports due to the Inuit status of 80% of its residents.

If the island nation was to align with the US, and become a protectorate, Greenlanders could not vote in presidential elections, nor would they have equal access to federal programs such as Medicaid.

Likely the US government would see Greenland gaining more from the arrangement than the United States, such as military protection, and therefore would have trouble justifying the nearly CAD$1 billion the country currently gets annually from Denmark. Having to forego that grant would make any association with the US a bad deal for Greenlanders.

Putting it all together, the conclusion is obvious: Greenland should cozy up to Canada and leave the United States out in the cold.

Richard (Rick) Mills
aheadoftheherd.com

Subscribe to AOTH’s free newsletter