By Patricia Zengerle
WASHINGTON, Jan 22 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump has said repeatedly that he wants to acquire Greenland, possibly by purchasing it from Denmark, despite the U.S. ally’s repeated insistence that it is not for sale.
On Wednesday, Trump appeared to rule out military force as a means of taking the Arctic island, saying that he had secured a deal with NATO to guarantee U.S. access to Greenland. The details remained unclear, however.
Here is what we know about the likely cost of a purchase and the constitutional limits on the president’s ability to add a new territory to the United States:
HOW MUCH WOULD GREENLAND COST?
With no market for buying and selling countries, it is of course impossible to put any meaningful price tag on Greenland.
But Otto Svendsen, an expert on the Arctic at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said it was not unreasonable to expect that the total cost of acquiring Greenland would approach $1 trillion.
That would include the cost of acquiring the world’s largest island, as well as potential lump-sum payments to the Greenlanders, budget transfers to maintain the island’s welfare state, infrastructure and defense investments, he said in an emailed statement.
Investors have questioned the wisdom of such a purchase when the U.S. has a $38 trillion deficit. Political rivals have also criticized Trump for spending abroad instead of helping American citizens. “How about instead of giving the American people Greenland, we give them healthcare?” Democratic Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania asked on Wednesday.
CAN A PRESIDENT UNILATERALLY ADD TERRITORY TO THE U.S.?
Congressional approval is required to expand the size of the U.S. Past purchases, such as the 1917 acquisition of the U.S. Virgin Islands – also from Denmark – have been carried out by treaty.
Two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 senators, must approve any treaty, according to the Constitution. That would mean Trump currently would have to convince at least 14 members of the Democratic caucus to approve a deal, even if he had the support of every Republican.
And some Senate Republicans have joined Democrats in saying that Washington should not force a sale. “Respect for the sovereignty of the people of Greenland should be non-negotiable,” Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the co-chair of the Senate Arctic Caucus, said in a statement.
It was not expected that Greenland, now a self-governing territory within Denmark, would become a U.S. state. With just 57,000 residents, the island’s population is far smaller than any state’s.
Other possibilities include forming a “compact of free association” with the U.S., which would include financial assistance in exchange for a security presence, or making Greenland a territory, like Guam or Puerto Rico. Territories are under federal control but residents lack rights such as voting representation in Congress.
The U.S. Constitution also gives Congress, not the president, control of federal lands.
CAN A PRESIDENT SPEND HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON HIS OWN?
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress, not the president, control of spending.
Trump’s Republicans, who have slim majorities in both the House of Representatives and Senate, have backed Trump as he has pushed the boundaries of the president’s spending authority, including by downsizing and closing agencies funded by Congress and spending millions on efforts like changing the name of the Department of Defense without congressional approval.
But it would be difficult to find and spend an amount comparable to the entire U.S. military budget without obtaining Congress’ buy-in.
HOW MUCH DOES THE U.S. NEED GREENLAND?
Trump and his backers have insisted the U.S. needs Greenland to fend off threats from Russian and Chinese interests in the Arctic and that Denmark cannot ensure its security. But the United States already has a base on the island and the ability to expand its presence there.
Trump also wants more access to Greenland’s rich but largely untapped rare-earth and critical mineral resources. Extracting oil and natural gas is banned in Greenland for environmental reasons, while the development of mining has been snarled in red tape and opposition from indigenous people.
In a recent Senate speech, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky cited the importance of the NATO alliance, and U.S.-Danish military ties.
“There is no ambiguity here. Close ties with our northernmost allies are what make America’s extensive reach in the Arctic possible. And I have yet to hear from this administration a single thing we need from Greenland that this sovereign people is not already willing to grant us,” he said.
(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Don Durfee and Alistair Bell)
Comments