From: user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid   
      
   On 1/6/26 10:21 AM, Julian wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)