On Jan. 29, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry penned a guest essay for The New York Times titled “Trump's Greenland Envoy: We Need ‘Total, Unfettered Access.’“ Mr. Landry occupies an unconventional perch for a busy sitting governor. He moonlights as the U.S. Special Envoy to Greenland, tasked by President Donald Trump to “lead the charge” to acquire the world’s largest island. In his essay, Mr. Landry makes the case that the U.S. must expand its military presence in Greenland.
Nowhere in his essay does he describe any obstacles to doing so in a constructive way with the consent of Greenlanders and their government, or assuage fears raised by the alarming, militaristic rhetoric of Mr. Trump. Instead, he spends his words sowing what sounds like a casus belli: the U.S. has dire national security needs that can only be satisfied by “reinvigoration of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine” and “a reassertion of American leadership where it matters most.” In other words, "American dominance in the Arctic is nonnegotiable."
Mr. Landry claims that China and Russia are “aggressively seeking” to exploit Arctic shipping routes. So much so that it warrants weeks of threatening a military invasion of Greenland and antagonizing NATO allies whose citizens have fought and died in America-led military conflicts.
Why, then, does the U.S. continue to ease restrictions on exporting powerful chips to China? In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Trump stated that he was confident Russia would not try to invade Ukraine again. If Mr. Trump finds Mr. Putin so trustworthy that he’ll take his word on Ukraine, can’t he ask him nicely to steer clear of Greenland? By esteeming China and Russia as our bitter enemies or chummy pals depending on what’s most convenient, this administration undermines its rationale for expanding U.S. military presence in Greenland.
In the bizarre time we find ourselves in, the U.S. treats America’s allies like adversaries and adversaries like allies. The actions threatened by Mr. Trump and those in his orbit contravene values at the heart and origin of what it means to be American.
This year will see celebrations of the 250th anniversary of America’s founding, established formally in 1776 by the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration excoriated the rule of King George III of Great Britain, labeling his actions those of a “tyrant... unfit to be the ruler of a free people” and citing 27 grievances as evidence. Among the grievances are the following: “He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures” and “He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.”
It is not clear how to square unfettered, unlimited and nonconsensual peacetime U.S. military presence in Greenland with America’s historical aversion to unsanctioned foreign militaries.
The grievances raised in the Declaration of Independence were meant to morally justify the American position and seek support from a world of nations who might otherwise be inclined to support the more powerful and influential Great Britain in the American Revolution. Despite winning this conflict, the U.S. continued to ignore its own foundational language for the sake of short-term economic and geopolitical gain, most notoriously the promise that “all men are created equal” through the continuation of the institution of slavery.
250 years later, the wizened U.S. still fails to live up to ideals it espoused in its youth. These failures are not limited to its foreign affairs. The recent deaths of Renée Good, Alex Pretti, and Keith Porter Jr. and the federal government’s impedance of their investigations calls to the Declaration’s 15th grievance, which reads: “For protecting [armed officers], by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.”
Americans have a responsibility to criticize our government when it departs from our ideals. America was founded to oppose tyranny — not to perpetuate it, either at home or abroad. Our commitment to amorphous buzzwords like “national security” cannot outweigh our nation’s blood oath, dotted with the lives of millions of Americans, allies and sympathizers to the cause of forming a more perfect union. Each abdication of that goal makes the next subtle tyranny easier, and our nation’s dream of fully realizing its ideals that much harder.
I implore Mr. Landry to consider the aspirations within our founding documents, and be attentive to the position of Greenlanders who themselves are working toward a governing constitution and sovereignty. The U.S. did not declare independence only to become the property of France or Spain. We are obligated to extend the same right of self-determination to Greenland and find other ways to prevent our fearful adversaries from capering through the region.
Of course, the national security fears may be window dressing for a simpler explanation: Mr. Trump wishes to buttress his legacy through land acquisition, however improbable or inadvisable. His administration’s earlier quests for Canada and Panama were similarly gilded by national security sentiments. I fear that the scramble for Greenland is more of the same.
Jackson Morris is a senior from Omaha, Neb. majoring in Biomedical Engineering.
