Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory In Greenland a Strategic Necessity?

Topics: World, Politics, Law

Greenland — an autonomous Danish territory with vast mineral wealth, a strategic Arctic location, and long U.S. military ties — has become a geopolitical flashpoint.

After the recent operation in Venezuela, and while use of force and full annexation have been ruled out, President Trump wants sovereignty over some areas for military purposes, arguing that the United States gaining some territorial rights is a necessity for security against China and Russia, and other national interests, such as access to emerging shipping routes. However, Danish and Greenlandic leaders have firmly rejected the idea, emphasizing Greenland’s right to self-determination. Some leaders also worry that a power grab could pit NATO against the U.S., destabilize Arctic governance, and weaken an already fragile world order in the years to come.

Within these evolving circumstances, we debate the question: Is U.S. Control of Limited Territory in Greenland a Strategic Necessity?

This debate is recorded in partnership with the Council on Foreign Relations.

Arguing Yes:

• Alexander B. Gray: Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council; Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff of the White House National Security Council

• Michael Pillsbury: Senior Advisor for the President’s Office at The Heritage Foundation

Arguing No:

• Kori Schake: Senior Fellow and the Director of Foreign and Defense Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

• Max Boot: Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations; Columnist at The Washington Post

Moderator-in-Chief:

• Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates