On February 12, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, & Transportation held a hearing to examine the geostrategic importance of Greenland to U.S. interests.
The hearing was designed to take a close look at “the strategic significance of Greenland to the American economy and national security, focusing on the island’s cache of rare earth elements and U.S. research presence on the island, as well as the potential threats due to the growing influence of Russia and China in the Arctic.” President Trump continues to propose that the United States take over Greenland for these reasons, and the Senate appears to be taking the idea seriously.
An independent Greenland
Alex Gray, currently a Senior Fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council and former Deputy Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff of the White House National Security Council in the first Trump administration, testified on the strategic importance of Greenland to the United States. He pointed out that Greenland has clearly stated its goal of gaining independence from Denmark, a fact which makes the focus on U.S.-Denmark relations less important than it may have initially appeared. If Greenland does not intend to remain under the authority of Denmark, then Denmark’s preferences in the matter are less significant.
“When Greenland inevitably obtains independence from Denmark, as their leaders tell us they will, who will be there to greet them on the other side?” Gray asks in his testimony. “Will it be Russia and China, with their history of predatory behavior in small, developing states and unwillingness to respect such states’ sovereignty? Or will it be the United States, with our commitment to sovereignty, the rule of law, respect for the environment, and for the rights and heritage of indigenous peoples?”
Gray proposes two options for an independent Greenland. One is to become a U.S. insular area, like Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories. He described this as the “ideal solution.” People living in the insular areas today may disagree, given the lack of democratic representation for the territories, but Gray describes it as a secure option with economic benefits for Greenland.
The other option he suggests is to offer a Compact of Free Association (COFA) to Greenland, once it becomes independent.
Independence required
In his testimony, Gray made it clear that the offer of a COFA could be made now, with the understanding that the offer could only be accepted after Greenland becomes independent. As a dependency of Denmark, Greenland could not enter into a Compact of Free Association. Only independent nations have COFAs with the United States.
“As the Committee is aware,” wrote Gray, “COFA signatory states are sovereign, independent countries; they are United Nations members with their own foreign policies and systems of governmental organization. What they share is a legal commitment by the United States to their defense; the grant of permanent military access to the United States; and the right of the United States to deny such access to any other power. Additionally, the U.S. provides the COFA signatory states certain financial support and development assistance.”
The minimal U.S. financial support of COFA nations is similar to the assistance given to other foreign countries, which does not include safety net programs accessible in U.S. territories such as Medicare, Social Security, and nutrition assistance.
COFA nations also cannot offer their residents U.S. citizenship; U.S. citizenship would not be offered to the people of a Freely Associated State of Greenland.
Lessons for Puerto Rico
Will Greenland join Puerto Rico as a U.S. territory? It doesn’t appear likely. But regardless of what Greenland may decide about its future relationship with the United States, it should be clear to those who support free association for Puerto Rico that free association is an option only for independent nations, specifically countries willing grant “permanent military access” over its land, water and air to the United States.
With under 60,000 residents, the population of Greenland is within the ballpark of the populations of the three current freely associated states of Palau (under 20,000 residents), the Marshall Islands (under 40,000 residents) and Federate States of Micronesia (approximately 100,000 residents). With such sparse populations, it may make sense for these nations to turn all matters of defense and national security over to the United States, a large world power.
This may not be the case for Puerto Rico’s roughly three million residents. In the early 1990’s many Puerto Ricans advocated for the U.S. Navy to leave Vieques. No one is advocating for the Navy’s return, and it appears doubtful that a new nation of Puerto Rico would now welcome the U.S. military back with open arms.
U.S. Military Presence in Palau – A Model for Puerto Rico?
The post A Compact of Free Association for Greenland? appeared first on PUERTO RICO REPORT.
