Why the U.S. Doesn't Need to Make Greenland the 51st State — and What the Historical Record Shows

Recent commentary about Greenland has sparked debate across the Atlantic. Some have questioned whether Denmark has legitimate authority over the island, while others have suggested it should become U.S. territory. These discussions merit a closer look at what the historical and legal record actually tells us.

Here's what that record reveals:


1. Greenland's Constitutional Status Within the Kingdom of Denmark

Greenland's relationship with Denmark has evolved considerably over the past century:

  • Until 1953, Greenland was indeed a Danish colony. However, that year marked a constitutional change when Greenland was formally integrated into the Danish realm, gaining representation in the Danish Parliament.
  • The United Nations subsequently accepted this transition, removing Greenland from its list of non-self-governing territories.
  • In 1979, Greenland gained home rule following a referendum in which over 70% of voters supported increased autonomy.
  • In 2009, following another referendum with 75.5% approval, Greenland achieved self-government under the Act on Greenland Self-Government. This arrangement recognises Greenlanders as a people with the right to self-determination under international law — including the right to pursue full independence through a democratic process should they choose to do so.


2. Denmark's Sovereignty Has Been Internationally Recognised for Over a Century

Denmark's position over Greenland has a well-documented legal history:

  • In 1916, when Denmark sold the Danish West Indies to the United States (now the U.S. Virgin Islands), Secretary of State Robert Lansing issued a formal declaration stating that the U.S. government would not object to Denmark extending its interests to the whole of Greenland.
  • In 1933, the Permanent Court of International Justice ruled in Denmark's favour in a sovereignty dispute with Norway, affirming Danish sovereignty over the entire island based on continuous exercise of authority.


These agreements form part of the legal foundation for Denmark's internationally recognised position today.


3. The 1951 Defense Agreement: Military Access, Not Sovereignty

Many outside Europe may be less familiar with the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement between Denmark and the United States:

  • This bilateral treaty, negotiated within the NATO framework, allows U.S. forces to operate military facilities in Greenland — most notably the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) in northwestern Greenland.
  • Importantly, the agreement permits the United States to establish additional bases or "defense areas" in Greenland, provided this is agreed upon by both governments and deemed necessary for NATO defense purposes. Denmark has indicated willingness to permit additional U.S. military deployments or infrastructure if requested.
  • The agreement explicitly maintains Danish sovereignty. Both the Danish and U.S. flags fly over the base, and the treaty stipulates that the U.S. military cannot infringe upon Danish sovereignty in Greenland.
  • In 2004, this arrangement was updated through the Igaliku Agreement, which Greenland's home rule government also signed, providing for closer coordination among all three parties. Under this updated agreement, the U.S. must inform both Denmark and Greenland of any proposed changes to its military presence.


The United States has maintained a military presence in Greenland since World War II under these agreed terms — and retains the option to expand that presence through negotiation, not through territorial ownership.


4. A Historical Note: U.S. Military Presence Has Declined by U.S. Choice

It is worth noting that today's single U.S. base in Greenland represents a significant reduction from the past — a reduction decided by the United States itself.

  • By the end of World War II, the U.S. had built or expanded 17 military facilities across Greenland.
  • During the Cold War, the U.S. operated multiple major air bases, radar stations, and other installations, with up to 6,000 personnel stationed at Thule alone.
  • The U.S. chose to close these bases as strategic priorities shifted. Today, only Pituffik Space Base remains operational, with approximately 150 service members.


This history is relevant: the United States voluntarily reduced its footprint in Greenland. No one forced them to leave.

However, this drawdown also left behind a troubling legacy. Several abandoned bases were never properly cleaned up. At sites like Bluie East Two, thousands of rusting barrels and military debris remain — what locals have come to call "American flowers." At Camp Century, a secret Cold War installation buried under the ice, an estimated 200,000 litres of diesel fuel, toxic PCBs, radioactive coolant, and 24 million litres of untreated sewage were left behind when the base was abandoned in 1967.


Climate change now threatens to expose this waste as the ice melts. In 2018, Denmark — not the United States — committed approximately $30 million to begin cleanup efforts. The U.S. has not been asked to contribute, and a clause in the original 1951 agreement may exempt it from responsibility.

For many Greenlanders, these abandoned sites are a reminder of decisions made without their consent — and obligations left unfulfilled.


5. Greenland's Right to Self-Determination

Today, Greenlanders hold significant political agency:

  • Under the 2009 Self-Government Act, Greenland is recognised as having the right to self-determination. The Greenlandic government controls most internal affairs, including mineral resources.
  • Should Greenlanders wish to pursue independence, the Act provides a clear legal pathway: a decision by the Greenlandic people through referendum, followed by negotiations with Denmark and approval by the Danish Parliament.
  • Recent polling suggests strong support for eventual independence among Greenlanders — though notably, when asked to choose between Denmark and the United States, an overwhelming majority preferred remaining within the Danish realm.


Conclusion: If Military Access Is the Goal, It's Already Available


This brings us to a fundamental question.


The primary justification offered for U.S. interest in Greenland has been security — specifically, the need for greater military presence in the Arctic to counter perceived threats from Russia and China. Yet the 1951 Defense Agreement already provides exactly that. Under the existing framework, the United States can maintain and operate military facilities in Greenland, and — with Danish and Greenlandic consent — establish additional bases as NATO defense needs evolve. Denmark has publicly stated its openness to such cooperation.


Moreover, the current single-base presence in Greenland is the result of U.S. decisions to scale back — not any limitation imposed by Denmark. The United States chose to close the bases it once operated. It could, under the existing agreement, negotiate to reopen or expand its presence.

So if military access is the objective, that objective can already be achieved through the agreements that have been in place for over seven decades.

This raises a broader question: If the existing treaties already provide for expanded U.S. military presence, why would ownership or statehood be necessary?

One possibility worth considering is that the interest extends beyond defense — to Greenland's significant deposits of rare earth minerals, strategic metals, and other natural resources that are becoming increasingly vital to global technology and energy supply chains.


Whatever the motivations, the historical and legal record is clear:

  • Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark under international law, a status affirmed by international courts and by the United States itself.
  • The U.S. has negotiated military access — not sovereignty — and that access includes provisions for expansion.
  • The U.S. previously operated far more bases in Greenland and chose to close them — leaving behind environmental damage that Denmark and Greenland are now addressing.
  • The future of Greenland belongs to Greenlanders, who hold the recognised right to determine their own political path.


Understanding these facts may help separate political rhetoric from the realities of history, law, and existing international agreements.