Just weeks after winning the presidential elections, President-elect Donald Trump began outlining an aggressive foreign policy that challenges established international relations and treaties. Among his more controversial proposals is the idea of buying or, at one point, even conquering Greenland. This vast, icy territory has attracted Trump’s attention due to its strategic location for national security and its natural resources.
An icy wasteland. Greenland has recently gained intermittent interest because of its critical minerals, including rare earth elements, copper, and nickel. According to the Financial Times, Greenland has attempted to position itself as a stable, Western alternative to the current reliance on China. However, these efforts haven’t yielded the expected results due to extreme weather conditions, a lack of infrastructure, and significant economic dependence on Denmark.
Trump’s proposal. Bloomberg points out the absurdity of Trump’s idea of purchasing or exerting control over Greenland. Analysts say it’s unfeasible and irrelevant to national security. There’s long been a fascination with the island’s resources–particularly oil and minerals–which dates back more than 50 years. Although interest in these resources resurfaced at the turn of the century, experts believe the reality is quite different. Greenland doesn’t produce oil, and past projects, such as one involving an iron ore deposit, have failed.
Today’s reality. Despite many expectations raised over decades of mineral exploration, investing in Greenland remains challenging. Currently, the island has only one active mine producing anorthosite, a mineral primarily used in the manufacture of fiberglass. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance recently said that Greenland has “a lot of great natural resources.” However, Bloomberg points out that it ultimately depends on the definition of “a lot.” The outlet concludes, “It’s not even close.”
Bloomberg also reports that a Danish geological survey conducted in 2023 identified at least 50 locations with potential for mining. However, half of these locations are north of the Arctic Circle, making their exploitation nearly impossible. The only area that appears promising is the Tanbreez rare earths deposit. In contrast, there are a few smaller deposits in Southern Greenland that have little potential and are costly to exploit.
Context. Trump hasn’t renewed his interest in Greenland on a whim, reflecting the island’s geopolitical importance. During his first term in 2019, Trump said he was considering purchasing Greenland, which sparked considerable media attention and international criticism. However, U.S. investments in the area have been limited. Currently, only one U.S. company holds an exploration license in Greenland, compared to 23 licenses held by companies from Canada and the United Kingdom.
Concern over China’s influence. China’s increasing dominance in the supply of critical minerals has raised concerns in the U.S. To provide some context, a land dispute between China and Japan more than 15 years ago led Beijing to restrict exports, which temporarily spiked mineral prices. Although this situation has since stabilized, worries about dependence on China persist, particularly since the country controls 90% of global production.
Analysts have warned that China could “close the tap any day,” resulting in significant price increases for essential minerals used in technology, renewable energy, and defense sectors. In light of these risks, Mike Waltz, who was set to be Trump’s national security advisor, has raised the possibility of Chinese intervention in Greenland. However, there’s limited evidence of Chinese involvement in mining activities on the island. A Chinese iron ore mining company had its license revoked four years ago due to inactivity. Meanwhile, another Chinese entity is only a minority shareholder in a stalled and controversial rare earths project, which has been blocked by Greenland authorities because of uranium concerns.
Fantasy vs. reality. It’s become evident that Greenland’s purported potential for natural resources exists more in the realm of collective imagination than as a tangible reality. The lack of infrastructure, extremely high development costs, and harsh geographical conditions mean that this idea remains an illusion.
Additionally, every few years, a new trend emerges, claiming to revolutionize and solve global mineral shortages, whether through deep-sea mining or asteroid mining. In the end, it’s clear that in the world of natural resources, promises of abundance often collide with harsh realities.
Image | Rod Long
Related | Trump’s Obsession With Greenland May Have an Unexpected Victim: Ozempic
View 0 comments