From: julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   It was the Viking, Eric the Red who, in AD 986, first saw Greenland’s   
   potential. He wanted to colonise his newly-discovered island, and in a   
   blatant piece of tenth-century spin-doctoring hit on a wizard wheeze to   
   encourage other Norse people to come to this bleak, icy and remote   
   corner of the unknown world:   
      
   ‘In the summer, Erik left to settle in the country he had found, which   
   he called Greenland, as he said people would be attracted there if it   
   had a favourable name.‘   
      
   More than a thousand years later, US president Donald Trump is proposing   
   something similar.   
      
   ‘It’s a large real estate deal. Owning Greenland is vital for US   
   security… and economic security… It’s an absolute necessity and I cannot   
   assure you that we would not use military or economic coercion.‘   
      
   That may sound outlandish. But Trump’s ambition isn’t new. America has   
   controlled Greenland before: during the Second World War, it became a de   
   facto US protectorate. The US has also previously sought to buy   
   Greenland; in 1946, it offered $100 million in gold bullion; around $7   
   billion in today’s money.   
      
   For now, Greenland belongs to Denmark. But Denmark’s ownership of   
   Greenland is itself a piece of bare-faced colonialism, as a glance at   
   their policy of forced assimilation in the 1940s and 50s makes clear. As   
   a result, the Danes are much resented by most Greenlanders.   
      
   Greenland has been moving towards independence almost as long as it has   
   been a colony of Denmark. They were granted Home Rule in 1979. This was   
   expanded to full self-rule with the 2009 Self-Government Act –   
   legislation that also handed Greenland the right to declare   
   independence. Today, Denmark retains control only of defence, foreign   
   affairs, and monetary policy. The 2023 Greenlandic constitution   
   explicitly commits the island to independence; and in his 2025 New Year   
   speech, Greenland’s prime minister, Múte Egede, called for an end to   
   ‘the shackles of colonialism’ and a future shaped by Greenlanders   
   themselves.   
      
   The final umbilical cord linking Greenland to Denmark is the annual   
   block grant of 3.9 billion kroner (roughly £410 million), making up   
   about 19 per cent of Greenland’s GDP. But to put that in perspective, it   
   is less than the amount annually spent by the US on the city of El Paso,   
   Texas. And it is minuscule compared to the mineral wealth Greenland   
   could one day command in partnership with a deep-pocketed ally, of whom   
   there are at least three: America, China and Russia.   
      
   China, in particular, has shown intense interest. At one point, Beijing   
   proposed a $2.5 billion (£1.8 billion) investment in a Greenlandic mine   
   (more than the island’s entire GDP), which would have brought in 5,000   
   Chinese workers. Then they proposed massive infrastructure investments,   
   including a deep-sea port and two international airports. These would   
   require capital which would leave Greenland beholden for all time.   
   Denmark and the US, unsurprisingly, blocked these plans.   
      
   So why are the great powers so keen to own Greenland? Natural resources   
   are a big reason why. The great powers’ unashamed lust for Greenland’s   
   rare earths is but one element of a global race to control the   
   production of the strategic minerals which are essential components of   
   batteries, phones, electric vehicles and all modern computing devices.   
   It’s about silicon, germanium, phosphorus, boron, indium phosphide,   
   gallium, graphite, uranium, copper, lithium, cobalt and nickel, among   
   others. He who controls their production holds the key to the digital globe.   
      
   Odd as it may sound, it’s also about Taiwan. Taiwan manufactures over 60   
   per cent of the world’s semiconductors and more than 90 per cent of its   
   most advanced chips. If China were ever to carry out its threat to   
   invade Taiwan (which some observers think may be imminent, perhaps   
   encouraged by Donald Trump’s daring raid on Venezuela), it would gain   
   near-total control of the global microchip supply. Do we really want to   
   be dependent on China for every phone, computer and electric vehicle   
   produced in the West?   
      
   The US needs to develop chip-making capabilities comparable to Taiwan’s.   
   To achieve this it needs reliable sources for the 50 or so critical   
   minerals required. And Greenland holds concentrated quantities of 30 of   
   them, amounting to a considerable chunk of the world’s total rare earth   
   reserves. But the reality is that with a population of just 57,000 –   
   many of them Inuit fishermen and hunters – Greenland lacks the   
   industrial infrastructure to extract these minerals. Both China and the   
   US would be keen to fill that gap.   
      
   Another great attraction of Greenland is its strategic position. As the   
   ice melts – at a rate of as much as 270 billion tonnes per year –   
   several strategic sea routes are being opened up. The world is waking up   
   to the potential strategic value of Greenland, the largest   
   non-continental island on Earth. Greenland controls the top end of the   
   Greenland–Iceland–UK Gap. This area is crucial to Nato submarine   
   surveillance and was vital in resupplying Europe during WWII. It also   
   hosts the Thule Air Base (now renamed Pituffik Space Base), an essential   
   part of US air defence and missile early warning systems. Any Russian   
   missile strike on the US would pass directly over Greenland. Since 2017,   
   Thule has housed a key ballistic missile detection system, with nearly   
   $4 billion (£3 billion) in upgrades recently approved.   
      
   The increasingly ice-free Northwest Passage skirts Greenland’s shores.   
   There’s even talk of a deep-sea port to serve the emerging Northern Sea   
   Route or NorthEast passage), either in Iceland or – just possibly – in   
   East Greenland. In 2019, Mike Pompeo called Arctic sea-lanes the   
   ’21st-century Suez and Panama Canals.’ If the US controlled Greenland,   
   it would control access to these routes as well.   
      
   So yes: Greenland’s strategic value to the US is unambiguous, and   
   Washington is determined to keep rivals at bay. In October 2024, the US   
   and Greenland issued a joint statement pledging deeper cooperation on   
   many of these critical issues. While an outright purchase may be   
   politically impossible, other options exist. These include a Compact of   
   Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with other   
   strategically placed Pacific nations. These can deliver economic and   
   security benefits to both parties. Trillions of dollars of Wall Street   
   investment in mineral extraction would surely follow.   
      
   Trump’s call to ‘buy’ Greenland sounds outlandish – even offensive –   
   as   
   with so much of his rhetoric. But beneath the bombast may lie the bones   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)