This is a very strange and unconvincing article. Greenland is massive; and, while it's very hard to give 'worth' to part of a country (and potentially misguided to attempt to do so in most cases), $2bn is pocket change for a wealthy country, and the potential upsides of owning such a vast tract of land are much bigger over time.
If I was offered $2b or such a large swathe of land, I know which I would take.
(The argument becomes crass anyway when you consider that real people live there.)
Sure real people live there, and selling it to the US wouldn’t change that. Real people live in many US territories. Life for a resident probably wouldn't change all that much under US rule.
It’s a huge amount of land, but most of it is covered in kilometer-thick glaciers. It’s not really all that usable; plus its strategic location in the North Atlantic shipping lanes makes it a liability in the event of war. Even if the US and Denmark have a falling out, an aggressive American military would likely make Greenland its first target.
In any case, the US gets what it wants for free; the Danes seem happy with the current arrangement, so it’s water under the bridge. This is a pretty convincing pragmatic argument, but pragmatism goes out the window when national pride is involved.
Greenland's land area is 2.1 million sq. km about the size of Saudi Arabia. But looking at it on a map you'd think Greenland was nearly the size of Canada (~10 million sq. km).
This is an important point. It's also important to note that Denmark is making this claim on behalf of/in support of the Greenlandic claim [0].
The goal for both Denmark and Greenland is for Greenland to become independent, and harnessing natural resources in Greenland's current and future territories is crucial in that regard.
“It might be fairer to multiply every figure by 60, to get a range from $180b to $960b”... uhmmm but you can’t just multiply random numbers when you’re talking about real, actual money in a real, actual bank account.
An excellent example of how ridiculous applying financial thought to everything can be.
As a dane, having Greenland as part of the kingdom is as natural as being able to see with two eyes. It may not serve a essential function in my everyday work but it would feel as a unconditional loss to me if I gave it away for any sum.
You really can’t rationalize it, but for a nation that once was the superpower of the north, Greenland as the very last reminant of the empire is not something we will give up freely. The obivious (and slightly heartbreaking) exception is to give it up to the Greenlanders themselves as is being done gradually.
I'd be happy to "give" Greenland independence (as if I have any right to deny them independence). I do not pine for the days when Denmark was a mighty bully. Now we're just a small bully—holding on to Greenland the Faroe Islands and pushing around the Afghans, Iraqis, and whomever else NATO tells us to bully—and that's plenty bad enough.
I read a good article about this subject [of these patrols] in a local mag around 2014. The point being, that Denmark puts money and effort into protecting Greenland.
Inflation is not the only way to calculate the relative 'cost' of Greenland. I think a more accurate perspective would be calculate the offer in terms (a percentage) of GDP.
American GDP in 1946 was $228M [1] (in 1940 it was $100M). The USA essentially offered half of their GDP for Greenland.
American GDP in 2016 was $18,625M.
So in relative terms, the Americans offered roughly $9Trillion.
I could not find the information directly, but I found some historical figures for GDP[1]
The figures I quoted above are in 1946 USD.
The figures quoted in the spreadsheet referenced are in "million 1990 International Geary-Khamis dollars" (IGKD)
So the spreadsheet in 1946:
USA: $1,305,357 IGKD
Den: $23,690 IGKD
So Denmark's GDP was 1.8148% of the USA's.
Or in reference to the USA's GDP of 1946 being $228M, Denmark's was merely $4.14M.
$100M in 1946 would have been a staggering amount of money, especially in the context and aftermath of WWII. It should also be noted that Denmark was largely untouched by the war, and in 1946 their economy resumed prewar output. This is probably what the leading factor was in turning down the purchase offer, and I generally agree that it was the right decision.
You've misinterpreted that. It's not 0.228 billion, it's 0.228 trillion ('t'), as in, $228 billion. The US couldn't've possibly been as poor as $228M GDP. (It grew fast after WWII but not that fast!) It is still, however, an extremely large amount of money either as a percentage of GDP or government budget.
Denmark uses Greenland for fishing, it is really important for them for eating. This is basic strategic decision. Food is a priority over anything else.
To only talk in dollars is ridiculous. You know how much it cost food when you don't have it, like in a war? infinite. My grandfather paid a fortune in order to survive during the escape from a totalitarian country.
What was portrayed in the West as "Arab Spring", "fighting for freedom" was in reality people that could not buy food because it became too expensive. Prices for food went to double or triple within months as some rich bastards had stockpiled all rice and cereal surplus in to world knowing well the situation in the north of Africa months before the conflict became visible.
That is what happens when your country leaders could not warranty your basic needs.
Another thing, Greenland is part of Europe, which is industrialized and needs raw materials. Selling to the US would have meant making Europe even smaller and weaker, and making the US even stronger.
In Geoplolitics you don't want to make other countries so powerful that they could basically enslave you. It is called "Ballance of Power".
> Denmark uses Greenland for fishing, it is really important for them for eating. This is basic strategic decision. Food is a priority over anything else.
No, the need to eat in no way represents the strategic importance of Greenland to Denmark. The article also makes this pretty clear: Greenland is a net cost to Denmark. Judging from your comment it sounds like people in Denmark are starving, and that's not the case at all. I doubt fishing in Greenland contributes in any significant way to Denmark's economy, but feel free to share any references to prove that point. I don't think any revenues generated by this activity would get close to Denmark's annual block grant to Greenland.
> Another thing, Greenland is part of Europe, which is industrialized and needs raw materials. Selling to the US would have meant making Europe even smaller and weaker, and making the US even stronger.
That might be true in the sense that there's a close cultural and political association between Europe and Greenland, but technically Greenland is part of the North American continent. In any case, the US <> Europe geopolitical consequences of such a transaction did not play a significant role in the decision not to sell.
Fishing in Greenland probably has little significance to Denmark's economy now, but in the event of some future political/economic crisis it's nice to have backup resources. Japanese militarism in the early 20th century was motivated by the fact the population there was growing faster than their rice production ability.
Admittedly if Denmark was suffering from genuine food insecurity then convoys to and from Greenland would probably be under threat as well, but I agree with the G that when food runs short every other consideration becomes secondary.
> I agree with the G that when food runs short every other consideration becomes secondary.
I get it, humans need food. If that’s your point I agree. That doesn't mean Greenland is a giant fridge to Denmark though. Other natural resources may have been and continue to be of interest to Denmark, but I'm pretty sure that zero Danes consider Greenland a backup food supply (even in times of crisis, which have occurred numerous times)
The story goes, that allowing US military bases with nuclear wepons on greenland denmark entry into NATO without fullfilling any of the normal requirements (like military spending).
If somewhat true it was properly a better deal than selling greenland.
Yes, NATO dues could be a reasonable justification if that was a counteroffer, but so far no one has provided any hard sources on that understanding even existing, much less coming close to the $100m.
Gwern edits articles as new information arrives. The links were added after the initial article was written. Gwern rarely submits their own content. [1]
Which is a bad idea in general. I think HN uses some kind of vote ring detection scheme. And checks if the referrer to a link is from HN or another source before counting their votes.
I've seen links like these on a variety of articles/blog posts. I hadn't considered it's possible abuse with voting rings: I've always thought of it a pointer to where discussion is held, kind of a proxy for self-hosted comments. I can see how it could be an issue, however.
Not selling the biggest island in the world for $2.4 bln in today monies was a mistake?
That's like the price of two London skyscrapers.
Denmark has a 305 bln GDP. That money would barely register.
Sure, today Greenland is not very useful, but what about in 50 years? Who knows what Denmark may be able to do with it then. And Denmark is not exactly a country with vast tracts of unused land.
If Greenland was mine, I wouldn't even pick up the phone for an offer < $100 bln.
Sized up to population/GDP it is also something like the cost of two London Olympics, or for the US maybe $120B.
Being able to say you possess the world's biggest island probably is not worth $400 per citizen (which is before factoring in the costs it has incurred). On the other hand it does facilitate maritime claims that are becoming extremely valuable as the Arctic melts and opens up to shipping and other economic activity.
> Sure, today Greenland is not very useful, but what about in 50 years?
Denmark barely controls Greenland today as it is. As with the Self-Government Act, it's most likely that Greenland will continue to gradually shift toward full independence.
If Greenland develops into anything, Denmark won't own or control it. For example if a million people move there over 50 years, perhaps seeking isolation or lower population density vs mainland Europe. It would be its own independent nation, not dissimilar from Iceland. The only way Denmark could hold onto Greenland would be through military action (never going to happen).
This comment leads me towards a question that I think is ignored in most of the article and the rest of this thread - the Danes' sovereignty notwithstanding, what was the gain / loss to Greenland as an entity as a result of this deal (or lack thereof)?
The island has been beholden to external parties and interests for centuries, seldom actually enjoying more than a modicum of self-determination. I see the autonomy granted them in 1979 (and further powers in 2009) by Denmark as being uncharacteristically benevolent for international standards, and something that would never be realised in a million years under the USA (particularly with their military presence).
I'd understand if Greenlanders never felt much kinship for the Danes, but I'd be hard-pressed to accept they'd feel any more for Americans. And I can't find any source referencing Greenland's sentiment towards this offer of acceding control to a global superpower they'd likely never enjoy independence from. Do we know if Denmark just did them a favour out of altruism here?
I'm not sure who would recognize Greenland if it unilaterally declared independence. EU probably not. It's not like there are human rights violations or anything going on in there, so they kind of lack a serious reason to split.
To me it looks like the only way for this to happen were if Denmark agreed (like Scotland), maybe under international pressure.
Unlike Scotland, Greenland is not part of the EU. The correct way to think of it is not as a part of Denmark but as a separate country under the same queen. Similar to the Dutch Caribbean territories or the British Channel islands.
Greenland voted to leave and become an OCT all Greenlandians are still EU citizens but Greenland is not part of the EC or EU.
EU territories are unot quite complicated often by design as most of the non EC/EU ones are effectively institutionalized and purposeful legal loopholes.
Greenland isn’t one of those cases really it was just financially non viable for them to be a part of the EC.
Those two skyscrapers would have been making you a fortune for decades, would be making you a fortune each year now, and would continue to do so, and when you sold them to some Russian oligarchs, would make you an even more enormous fortune than all of that put together.
In contrast, 'the biggest island in the world' is a worthless superlative as about as meaningful as "biggest ball of twine in the world", and it is useless and expensive to maintain and has not, is not now, and probably never will make you a fortune. Can you eat 'biggest island in the world'? Does mere bigness make it useful? Is the Sahara valuable solely because it is large? Do people prefer to go to Greenland rather than Hawaii because it's so much larger an island?
Even if Greenland does start seeing real economic activity - maybe that much ballyhooed oil will finally start being economically feasible - and it makes you specifically a fortune rather than someone else, it'll do so in some distant unforeseeable future and you will have lost out on everything you could have done with that money now. If you think that's a good deal, I have an offer for you: send me $100m now, and I swear I will return you $100m in 50 years. Good deal, right? Who knows what you can do with $100m 50 years from now!
> And Denmark is not exactly a country with vast tracts of unused land.
"Denmark has a population density of 131 people per square kilometer (339/square mile), which ranks 88th in the world."
I completely agree, and I wanted to add that the paragraph where the author suggests that money is 60X more valuable to Denmark doesn't make a lot of sense... Last time I checked, 1 USD was worth exactly 1 USD, exchange fees notwithstanding.
Denmark can't really do anything, as Greenland has been granted self-rule and very wide autonomy, with Denmark retaining control over foreign relations and defence.
Well if you want to be realistic about it, that would be decided by the US military. Greenland is and has been a strategic military posting as far as the US military is concerned going back to WW2. Denmark has a $3 billion military budget, they can't decide or dictate anything when it comes to international politics. NATO would decide whether Denmark were allowed to do anything militarily to retain Greenland, ie the US would decide.
Greenland is loaded with ex-US military bases and the Trump admin has indicated that they want to re-populate one of them. Harder to screw around with land when a different country has a larger military presence on that island than you do.
Because the US has its own islands and if UK/France turn into North Korea then the US would be very quickly to touch said islands.
That said those islands are not in the flight path of Russian bombers and land launched ICBMs.
Greenland and previously Iceland were important strategic assets during the Cold War and with hostilities heating up again with Russia they are becoming more important by the day.
I'm sure, ATM at least, that Greenland is costing Denmark money every year more than it is bringing through in any taxes. Perhaps it will eventually turn out to be another Alaska, but the economics aren't that simple.
One alternative would have been something like a 99-year lease with a handover in 2045. On the other hand it'd probably have more superfund sites in return. So all in all, likely a good choice.
> It is not as if European countries sending foreign aid to Africa is some hugely novel and experimental concept. It is well-understood how to do good in Africa and the Danish would be more competent than most at the job.
Actually it’s not well understood at all, and whatever lessons we think we’ve learned aren’t normally applied as aid is emotional and not rational [1]
If I was offered $2b or such a large swathe of land, I know which I would take.
(The argument becomes crass anyway when you consider that real people live there.)