Greenland Pact Secures Homeland, Contains Adversaries
Nuuk, the capitol of Greenland (Shutterstock)
By Clarice Feldman
Last week the U.S. entered into an agreement with both Denmark and Greenland which protects U.S. sovereignty, deters Russian and Chinese aggression, circles an increasingly fey and unreliable Canada with U.S. states and bases, and makes the U.S. exit from a sclerotic NATO more possible, if not more likely.
First, a little background. Contrary to the press and jokesters who ridiculed President Trump’s offer to buy Greenland, a territory of Denmark with about 56,000 inhabitants, we have long known its strategic importance. In 1951, we entered into an agreement with Denmark allowing us to establish a base at Thule. Article XIV of that Treaty states that “This Agreement, being in implementation of the North Atlantic Treaty, shall remain in effect for the duration of the North Atlantic Treaty.”
If we left NATO or it otherwise ceased to exist, we had no clear right to maintain defenses there. Nor did we have exclusive rights to ban foreign investments which posed security threats to us. In time, the treaty was inadequate to protect our interests, as Russia now had ICBMs, and Russian nuclear submarines were navigating Arctic waters. Moreover, the small population of Greenland was talking about independence, and Russian and Chinese governments were not averse to bribing them substantially in exchange for operating rights there. Our agreement was with Denmark, and it’s unclear it could bind an independent Greenland.
It could even mean an independent Greenland strongly under Chinese influence might be on the other side of the negotiating table.
In sum, for a number of reasons, that dated Cold War-era treaty needed to be supplanted by something better, and better is what we got. This week’s agreement, which cost us nothing, guarantees forever “the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend “our security and that of Greenland.”
“Additionally, from now on, no U.S. adversary can ever have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland, without our express written approval.”
Why, it’s as if Trump looked at the world map and drew a red-line fortress around the U.S., protecting the North from bases in Greenland, protecting the South by ousting Maduro from Venezuela and setting up the toppling of Cuba while clearing out China from the Panama Canal.
Donald Trump has executed the [sic] one of the most significant territorial and security consolidations since the purchase of Alaska in 1867.
There’s something in this for all three parties: Denmark retains its Greenland territory; Greenland retains its rights to govern itself on internal matters, and the U.S. gets exclusive security rights permanently.
Saying he wanted to buy Greenland was a shrewd negotiating tactic, ”anchoring,” that is, and clarifying what we really wanted, and forcing Denmark and Greenland to do the same so a mutual agreement could be reached.
Since at least 2019, Trump has publicly spoken out about the need to protect the Arctic corridor by replacing the 1951 Treaty. And he was reviled unfairly for the effort.
The geopolitical chessboard has been permanently rewritten, and the architects of managed American decline are staring into the abyss of their own irrelevance.
Donald Trump has executed the [sic] one of the most significant territorial and security consolidations since the purchase of Alaska in 1867. By finalizing an infinite-term security agreement over Greenland, the United States has officially established an immovable strategic garrison at the apex of the globe. While the corporate press and the progressive foreign policy establishment spent years sneering at the proposal, dismissing Arctic sovereignty as an eccentric real estate fantasy, Trump methodically forced Copenhagen to the table.
The United States now holds absolute veto power over adversarial access, permanent basing rights, and full authority over Greenlandic security at zero cost to the American taxpayer. Moscow is decisively locked out of the vital maritime corridors of the North Atlantic. Beijing is permanently evicted from Arctic rare earth deposits and stripped of its Polar Silk Road ambitions. The American homeland is shielded beneath an expanding Golden Dome missile defense umbrella. This represents pure, unapologetic realpolitik executed with surgical precision, demonstrating that national greatness is forged through raw leverage and resolute will.
Examine the psychological disintegration of the American left as this triumph materializes. Their reaction provides a textbook autopsy of ideological decay. For nearly a decade, liberal commentators ridiculed the strategic acquisition of Arctic territory, mocking the vision on late-night comedy platforms and writing haughty essays regarding international decorum. Now that the pact is signed, their arrogant condescension has curdled into bitter panic.
Examine the psychological disintegration of the American left as this triumph materializes. Their reaction provides a textbook autopsy of ideological decay.
The modern progressive rejects strategic interest, national survival, and civilizational vitality. The left operates on a singular, diseased reflex: whenever an action fortifies the United States, they condemn it; whenever a policy degrades American sovereignty, they celebrate it. Their sudden, feigned concern for Danish sensitivities is entirely fraudulent.
These are the very same ideologues who applauded the systematic dissolution of our southern border, begged multinational climate summits to dictate domestic energy consumption, and drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve to mask domestic inflation. Their outrage reveals the terror of a parasitic managerial class watching hard power dismantle their utopian illusions.
Consider the profound humiliation of Canada, an entity that represents the most pathetic spectacle in modern statecraft. Ottawa operates as a disarmed protectorate masquerading as an enlightened moral superpower.
The best way to avoid war is to deter adversaries ahead of time by making clear that aggression will bear a huge cost. The way to do that is by creating a strong military posture, and that, Wretchard argues, is what Trump has done.
The central Western figure in the restoration of deterrence, is the widely hated, grudgingly admired, polarizing figure of Donald J. Trump. Trump is hated because he has stepped on everyone's toes by throwing the entire machinery of international consensus into reverse, often in the most impolitic and galling way. At the same time, even his critics acknowledge, by belated imitation and muttering compliance, the essential necessity of many of DJT's moves. Time alone will tell if DJT will succeed.
The people who oppose the notion of a strong U.S. national security surely see the same thing we do -- that their power is vanishing. U.S. officials warn that what our adversaries cannot achieve on the battlefield or by credible threats to our security posture, they will attempt by deepening domestic fissures. USAID is busted, partisan NGOs are under increased scrutiny, grifters are being exposed and prosecuted, and people now have a fuller understanding of astroturfed demonstrations posing as grassroots outpourings. As we head to the midterms, look out for bogus posts online and fabricated videos.
Original Here
|
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐