Take the high road: A Marshall Plan for Greenland

Over the first year of his second presidential term, Donald Trump has unabashedly turned to two of his predecessors as President of the United States for inspiration: William McKinley, on tariffs; and James Monroe, on asserting U.S. supremacy over the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. On the question of securing U.S. influence in Greenland, however, he may find that it is a scheme bearing the name of the 50th Secretary of State, General George C. Marshall, that provides a more meaningful solution.

Under the Marshall Plan, the U.S. provided more than $13 billion in foreign aid to Western Europe between 1948 and 1952. This was to be used to rebuild the continent’s war-ravaged economies at the end of the World War II, fostering economic integration and democratic governments, restoring prosperity and stability, and securing U.S. influence in Western Europe. The U.S. successfully countered Soviet influence in Western Europe – not by annexing European territories, but by investing in European economies. The plan exemplified the foresight, genius and effectiveness of American economic diplomacy.

If Trump wishes to curb potential Russian or Chinese encroachment in Greenland today, and secure U.S. influence over the resource-rich and strategically located Arctic nation, he would do well to look to the Marshall Plan for inspiration. The key question is whether the answer lies in military aggression or economic diplomacy.

We are far too often served highly idealistic narratives about the economic opportunities in Greenland. So kindly allow me to take the liberty of providing a more realistic picture, and proposing in its light two initiatives that I believe would address Trump’s concerns and realise his aspirations more effectively and respectably than annexation:

1. Establish an “economic NATO’’ to provide joint financing for strategic projects in Greenland.

2. Create a Trump Fund for the Development of Greenland, equivalent to the Marshall Plan.

Now, over to Greenland. A quick glance at the country’s economy will reveal that in many ways it is a classic oligopoly, with a handful of state-owned enterprises dominating sectors as diverse as fishing, aviation, shipping, telecommunications, retail and energy. One may encounter a couple of large and successful private enterprises such as Polar Seafood in fishing and Pisiffik in retail, and a few promising private enterprises in tourism and hospitality. Beyond these, it is difficult to identify major success stories – especially involving global actors.

While Greenland may have vast resources of strategic importance to the West, it has long struggled to be competitive in the global marketplace due to factors such as high costs of transportation; inadequate infrastructure; a relatively high degree of bureaucracy, which can make doing business quite cumbersome and expensive; and manpower shortages which can lead to endless delays. However, none of these barriers are insurmountable. Nor do they arise from any unwillingness on the part of Greenland to be open to business and ready for investment.

Transatlantic Hub

In recent years, increased connectivity between Greenland and the world – starting with shipping and air routes between Greenland and the U.S. – is making it easier to get people and goods to and out of the Arctic nation. As more parties from around the world enter the fray, Greenland will only grow more connected and integrated with the global economy, and competition will eventually also bring down prices. With a little help, Greenland could successfully emulate the example of Iceland and establish itself as the next big transatlantic hub for aviation and shipping.

Likewise, Greenland has taken significant strides in recent years when it comes to improving its roads, ports and airports. With better infrastructure and greater connectivity, Greenland is gradually becoming more accessible and more affordable for business. The process can be expedited by Western allies and partners by supplementing national investment with infrastructure financing, with deeper capital and on friendly terms.

The multi-jurisdictional nature of governance in Greenland and a bureaucratic setup that can seem a little wieldy to anyone outside the Kingdom of Denmark may make Greenland slightly daunting to foreign investors. However, the government has been proactive and successful at global investor outreach in target sectors such as mining, and responsive to investor needs by producing guides that make procedures clearer and data that makes investment decision-making easier. Here too, Greenland’s Anglophone allies could provide capacity-building support that helps the country streamline and simplify procedures further, and grow more economically and technologically competitive to win in a wider international marketplace.

Unrealised Potential

While there remain shortages of manpower, which might even necessitate bringing in foreign labour for certain projects, there has been a serious and sustained focus in Greenland on creating a better trained local workforce in both public and private sectors. Again, technical assistance by allies – whether through secondments, exchanges, training programmes, or joint R&D initiatives – can go a long way in helping Greenland realise its human resource potential.

In short, there is much that Western allies can do to make Greenland more competitive so it is open to business in practice and not just in rhetoric, and it is here that the U.S. can add the most value.

On the multilateral front, the U.S. can lead the Western world by establishing an economic NATO that provides joint financing for strategic projects that dissuades companies and governments – starting with Greenland – from ever having to look to China. Through such an institution, NATO Allies can bolster cooperation with Greenland not just on defence and security, but also boosting economic competitiveness through improved resource intelligence, the provision of pools of friendly capital, and sharing of technical know-how and best practices.

Beyond offering access to deeper pools of capital on friendlier terms, one of its core services could also be leveraging expertise from within the U.S. and its allies to provide short- or long-term technical assistance to Greenland on a demand-driven basis, thereby building the country’s national capabilities through sustainable institutional development and capacity-building.

Such technical support could include the deployment of foreign sector-specific experts to Greenland on secondments; exchanges that allow Greenlanders to gain sector-specific skills overseas; the provision of training programmes aimed at local workforce development; the commissioning of research and feasibility studies; and the development of joint R&D initiatives. This would provide Greenland with “country ownership” over its own development, while strengthening its place at the heart of the U.S.-led Western alliance.

On the bilateral front, Trump can devise his own version of the Marshall Plan by setting up a fund that directs its resources towards the economic development of Greenland. That way, Trump can still have his name stamped on the history of Greenland for posterity, but in a much more respectable, effective and welcome way than through annexation.

The Right to Decide

This new fund could be called The Trump Fund for the Development of Greenland. Under this scheme, the question of whether Greenland decides to remain an autonomous realm within the Kingdom of Denmark or be an independent country in its own right, would be a matter only for Greenlanders to decide. However, it would allow the U.S. to support more meaningfully and substantively the economic development of Greenland by catalysing innovation, facilitating economic diversification, reducing trade restrictions, modernising industry, improving economic and technological competitiveness, and investing in infrastructure.

The fund could be designed to act as the sharpest instrument in the U.S.’s economic diplomacy toolbox when it comes to curbing any perceived Russian and Chinese encroachment, thereby ensuring Greenland remains firmly within the Western orbit of influence.

So my advice to Trump is to avoid unhelpful and counter-productive talk of annexation and to focus instead on ensuring the U.S. leads the Western world in assisting Greenland with capacity-building support to unlock its full potential. Annexation, or even just the talk of it, does not achieve that. Instead, it diverts time, energy and resources away from the actual issues that Greenland could and should be working on to contribute more fully to its own development and to its existing partnerships.

It may be increasing the attention the world is paying to Greenland, but greater interest does not always lead to greater investment. Trump is absolutely right to say that Greenland is of great strategic importance to the U.S., and that the U.S. needs Greenland for national and international security. However, as the success of the Marshall Plan shows, annexation is not the answer. Investment is.

Any opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Arctic Today.

Dr. Dwayne Menezes is a historian, foreign policy expert, and social entrepreneur specializing in the Commonwealth and Polar Regions. He is the founder of the Polar Research and Policy Initiative, a London-based international think-tank dedicated to Arctic, Nordic and Antarctic affairs.

With a PhD from the University of Cambridge, Dr. Menezes has held academic and policy roles, including advising the Commonwealth and the UK Parliament. He is also a published author and associate producer of award-winning films.