Breaking down the Greenland issue from last week’s edition

In last week’s edition of “The Record,” Asher Gilderman submitted an op-ed that asserted it is a “moral imperative” for the United States to buy Greenland. Gilderman’s argument is well-articulated and brings up many important points of consideration. However, I believe several elements were misconstrued and that believing the purchase has any basis on morality is fallacious.

As Gilderman points out, the polls show Greenlanders overwhelmingly seek independence. However, Gilderman minimizes how U.S. ownership of Greenland would inherently suppress this independence movement. According to the Danish foreign minister, Greenland’s desire for independence does not indicate any interest in becoming a U.S. federal state. The purchase would completely disregard Greenlanders’ desires and potentially set them backward. It would not at all be liberating for Greenlanders; they would simply be shackled to a different, and potentially worse, power.

Gilderman bases the argument against Danish ownership on the idea that Denmark is “detached from Greenland and uninterested in developing it.”

I believe this to be untrue. Last month, Denmark added a polar bear to their coat of arms to signify their connection to Greenland. It also important to note that Greenland is internationally recognized as a separate people and has control over its own legal system, police, internal affairs and natural resources, while Denmark only controls Greenland’s foreign affairs and defense.

Greenland has voting representatives in the Danish parliament and significant say in foreign and security policies regarding the island.

Any lack of development in Greenland is the fault of their own government, not Denmark’s. Denmark does not have as much control over Greenland as Gilderman seems to assert.

Gilderman further argues that the Danish subsidies to Greenland are a “pittance” and keep Greenland in a subordinate role.

However, Denmark’s foreign aid to Greenland is significantly better than what the United States offers to territories it currently owns.

According to Danish researcher Urik Pram Gad, the United States pays $2,025 per capita to its Pacific territories, with substantial amounts dedicated to U.S. programs, while Denmark pays $12,500 per capita and allows Greenland to do as they please with the money.

Based on precedence, subsidies from the United States would be remarkably worse and leave Greenland in a more subordinate state than before.

More importantly, the requirement to fund U.S. programs would hinder Greenland’s ability to develop its country.

One of the most erroneous errors in Gilderman’s argument is taking the Danish prime minister’s quote “Greenland is not for sale” as an affront to Greenland’s self-determination.

The full context of the quote suggests the prime minister supports Greenland’s move for independence: “[the Greenlandic prime minister] has been very, very clear — that there is a lot of support among the people of Greenland that Greenland is not for sale and will not be in the future either.”

The prime minister reportedly followed this quote with a statement that Greenland’s future will be dictated by Greenland. Having the full context clarifies that the Danish prime minister was uplifting the voices of Greenlanders and respecting their decisions, not repressing their desire for freedom.

There is no denying that Greenland’s economy is significantly dependent on Denmark, and many Greenlanders have expressed they don’t want independence if it means their economy will crash.

However, being a territory isn’t a requirement for providing financial aid. The United States is perhaps the largest provider of foreign aid packages, and in 2023, the United States provided more than $7 billion in military assistance to independent countries across the globe.

If it is in the interest of U.S. officials to protect and develop Greenland, they can easily do so without sacrificing the Greenlanders’ right to sovereignty.