How could Donald Trump ‘take’ Greenland?

US interest in Greenland dates back to the 19th century: understand what’s behind it United States President Donald Trump wants to take possession of Greenland. And the White House confirmed that all options are on the table, including the use of force. 📱Download the g1 app to see news in real time and for free A possible military operation is just one of several political and economic options under consideration. An attack by one member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) against another would represent a nightmare for the military alliance made up of 32 countries — and, probably, a threat to its very existence. Trump has repeatedly declared that Greenland is critical to American national security. He claimed, without showing evidence, that the island is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships everywhere.” With the help of American, British and Danish experts, the BBC examined the different options that the president could pursue and the possible justifications for each of them. Military action Polls indicate that many Greenland residents support independence from Denmark, but few want to be part of the United States Getty Images Defense analysts say a lightning operation to occupy Greenland could be relatively easy, but its consequences would be monumental. Geographically, the island is immense, but its population is only around 58 thousand people. A third of them live in the capital, Nuuk, and the rest are mainly concentrated on the west coast. The territory does not have its own armed forces and Denmark is responsible for its defense. But its air and naval power is limited to cover such an extensive territory. Large parts of the island are patrolled only by the Sirius Patrol, a Danish special operations unit that primarily employs dog sleds. But last year, Denmark significantly increased its defense spending in the Arctic and North Atlantic, including Greenland. Military presence in Greenland BBC Its vast dimensions, small population and lack of armed forces would make Greenland an easy target for the US, which already has more than 100 military personnel permanently based at the Pituffik base, in the extreme northwest of the island. Theoretically, that facility could serve as a logistical base for future operations. The Pituffik base has existed since World War II (1939-1945). American troops moved to the island to establish radio stations and military posts when the Nazis occupied Denmark during the conflict. Danish security expert Hans Tito Hansen is the chief executive of the company Risk Intelligence. He describes what a possible American military operation to take Greenland might look like. For Hansen, the 11th Air Division, based in Alaska, would offer the “primary capability” for an eventual invasion, “supported by the air force and navy.” The base includes two Arctic brigades, capable of helicopter- or paratrooper-led missions. British Army Reserve Officer Justin Crump agrees with this assessment. He runs the risk and intelligence company Sibylline. “The United States has extraordinary naval power and the ability to transport large numbers of troops,” explains Crump. “You could easily fly enough soldiers to have one for every few inhabitants on a single flight.” He highlights that this would be a cruel option, but it would possibly not spill blood, as there would likely be little resistance. Greenland’s territory is immense, but its population is sparse. Therefore, a possible military operation would be quick Getty Images In the United States, several former defense officials and analysts have declared that a possible military operation is extremely unlikely, considering its wide-ranging implications for the alliances between the United States and Europe. “It would clearly be against all international laws,” says former Marine Mick Mulroy, who was once a paramilitary officer for the CIA (American Foreign Intelligence Service) and United States Assistant Secretary of Defense. “In addition to posing no threat to the United States, they are also allies in international treaties.” If the White House began preparing a military operation, Mulroy believes there would be resistance from American lawmakers. They could prevent the actions by using the War Powers Act, designed to limit the president’s ability to go to war without congressional approval. “I don’t believe there would be support in Congress to destroy NATO,” he declared. MORE Citing a lawmaker and a source familiar with the discussions, the CBS TV network, a BBC partner in the United States, reported that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told congressmen that the purchase is the Trump administration’s preferred option. But even if Greenland wanted to be sold, that transaction would be very complicated. The US Congress would need to provide the funds and purchasing Greenland by treaty would require the approval of two-thirds of the Senate, which would be very difficult to achieve, according to experts. The European Union would also need to approve the deal. The U.S. base at Pituffik, Greenland, was created to establish radio stations and military outposts when the Nazis occupied Denmark during World War II. AFP Trump could theoretically try to strike a deal unilaterally, without involving Greenland or Congress. But experts believe it is extremely unlikely. Professor Monica Hakimi, an expert in international law at Columbia University in the United States, declared that “it is possible to imagine a situation” in which Denmark, the United States and Greenland agree on the terms of transferring the territory. “But to be fully consistent with international law, such a treaty would probably also need to involve the participation of Greenlanders in their self-determination,” she highlighted. It is unclear how much purchasing the island would cost. This factor could complicate the process for Trump, who based his presidential campaign on the motto “America first.” The prospect of spending billions or even trillions of tax dollars on an ice-covered island could go down very badly with your Maga base (“Make America Great Again”). Crump, from Sibylline, believes that the eventual failure to purchase the island could make the military option more attractive to Trump, perhaps driven by the recent success of the American operation in Venezuela, which led to Nicolás Maduro being arrested. “He’ll say ‘well, let’s take it then’.” Rubio will meet with Danish officials next week to discuss Greenland. He declared that Trump “is not the first American president to look at or look at how we could acquire” the territory. He refers to former President Harry Truman (1884-1972). In 1946, he raised the idea of ​​paying US$100 million (around R$540 million, at current exchange rates) in gold to buy Greenland. A campaign to win over the Greenlanders Opinion polls indicate that the majority of Greenlanders want independence from Denmark. But they also suggest that they don’t want to be part of the United States. Still, the United States could focus efforts on convincing the local population with short-term financial incentives or the prospect of economic benefits in the future. News published in the American press indicates that United States intelligence agencies have already started to monitor the Greenland independence movement more closely, trying to identify figures who could support the objectives of the American government. Geostrategy expert Imran Bayoumi of the Atlantic Council in Washington DC is a former policy consultant for the US Department of Defense. He told the BBC that an “influence campaign” is much more viable than any military action. Bayoumi explains that this campaign could help encourage Greenland towards independence. “And once Greenland declares independence, you can have the American government as a partner,” he explains. “The costs of military action are too high.” This type of partnership has precedents. The United States, for example, signed a similar agreement with Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands, three independent Pacific nations that granted Americans access to defense rights. In return, citizens of all three countries have the opportunity to live and work in the United States. But this solution may not satisfy Trump, who already has the power to bring as many troops as he wants to Greenland based on existing agreements. And such an agreement would not offer the United States ownership of Greenland’s vast mineral reserves, buried deep beneath the Arctic ice. Hansen argues that a possible campaign to “have” Greenland, without military action, will not be successful as long as the island’s population opposes the idea. And, for now, no local political party advocates that the territory become part of the United States. “It is more likely that Greenland [independente] return to be part of the European Union,” he says. “And the current government of the United States has only three years left in its mandate, while the people of Greenland perhaps have a horizon of 1,000 years ahead of them.” VIDEOS: trending on g1 See the videos that are trending on g1

Source link