Congress must step up to stop Greenland threats

I cannot believe that I am seriously writing this column, but here goes.

If you had asked anyone a year ago to think of a scenario where two NATO members could come to blows over an island, the answer would have been Greece, Turkey and Cyprus.

Now, however, the answer seems to be Denmark, the United States and Greenland. Seriously?

Here are the reasons that the United States cannot or should not try to purchase or take by force the island of Greenland, a semi-autonomous region of Denmark, which is a U.S. ally and NATO member:

It is not for sale. The Danish constitution does not allow for the sale of Greenland without the consent of the Greenlanders, who have been clear that they seek eventual independence. A military move against Greenland would tear apart the NATO alliance, and currently the Congress has not authorized such a move. The value of minerals, oil, gas and strategic assets can be in the trillions of dollars. Congress will never authorize that kind of expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

The United States signed an agreement with Denmark in 1951 that gives it wide latitude in establishing military facilities on the island. Today, there is just one base that provides missile warnings and space surveillance, but it has been the United States that has decided to reduce its military presence on the island.

If this were actually about Russian and Chinese activities in the Arctic, the United States would convene NATO members and work out a strategy to counter potential threats. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the U.K., Iceland and Canada would all be essential allies in this endeavor. How are our security interested advanced by going it alone?

If this were actually about keeping Chinese investments out of Greenland, the United States could have a civil conversation with Denmark. Denmark has already blocked Chinese investments on the island and has welcomed American investment with open arms.

However, if the U.S. is intent on trying to force Chinese companies out of Venezuela and Greenland and other countries in the Western Hemisphere where China is the No. 1 trading nation for many countries, the U.S. needs to be prepared for the blowback.

Given the administration’s modus operandi, however, this very much seems to be about minerals and oil (there’s that word again) and opportunities for supporters of the president to profit, though those riches remain under a thick ice sheet.

Or perhaps it is pure legacy. How does “Trumpland” sound?

At the moment it is almost comical (though this is not funny) watching Republican members of Congress and members of the administration twist themselves into rhetorical knots trying to make the potential acquisition of Greenland by force sound normal … you know, just another business deal. We are told to not take the president’s outrageous rhetoric seriously because, you understand, this is just the way he negotiates and, you know, he’s a deal maker. This is absurd.

It was heartening to see a group of European nations sign a joint declaration saying enough is enough. Now, our Congress might stop hiding in the broom closet and pass a resolution that says not one cent will be spent to acquire Greenland and not one cent will be spent on military operations to try to coerce Denmark to let us take over Greenland. Add a few lines about the importance of our allies and the NATO Alliance while you are at it.

I have a Danish friend whose father was the head of the Danish military in the 1980s. The Admiral was a great man and America never had a better friend. Today, he is surely turning in his grave and shedding tears of frustration and sadness.

• Keith Peterson, of Lake Barrington, served 29 years as a press and cultural officer for the United States Information Agency and Department of State. He was chief editorial writer of the Daily Herald 1984-86. His book “American Dreams: The Story of the Cyprus Fulbright Commission” is available from Amazon.com.