How Would the US Buying Greenland from Denmark Compare to When America Bought Alaska from Russia?
Many have speculated about the United States acquiring Greenland from Denmark. While it may seem appealing to some, the circumstances surrounding such an endeavor are complex and differ significantly from historical acquisitions like the purchase of Alaska from Russia.
Historical Context of US and Alaska
In the 1860s, the American West was being explored and settled rapidly. Russia was looking for a way to expand its influence in the Pacific. The Alaska purchase, officially known as the Treaty of Cession, occurred in 1867 when the United States paid Russia $7.2 million (approximately $120 million in today's dollars). At that time, Russia viewed Alaska as more of a liability than an asset due to its cost in resources and the difficulty of defense and communication.
During the 1860s, wealthier nations could more easily acquire or sell land, often exploiting the interests of less powerful nations or populations. The rights of indigenous peoples were rarely considered, and the land they inhabited was often treated as easily transferable property.
The Current State of the US and Greenland Relations
Today, the notion of one nation purchasing another from its colonial power is near impossible due to changing international laws and standards. The age of empires has long passed, and the United Kingdom would not have felt pressured to purchase Russian America, later known as Alaska. This would eventually become a part of Canada, as it aligns with current geopolitical realities.
Current Legal and Ethical Considerations
Today, the concept of human rights and self-determination is paramount in international law. Greenland, a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, has complex legal and geopolitical standing. Unlike past acquisitions, modern international law recognizes that the rights of the inhabitants are primary.
Greenland isn’t up for sale. Denmark, as the sovereign government, has the authority to rule over the territory. However, any change in Greenland's status requires the explicit consent of its residents. This ensures that the residents have a say in their future and sovereignty is preserved.
For example, if the Greenlandic people were to initiate a movement to join the United States, then the U.S. might consider it. However, it would be illegal and unreasonable for either the U.S. or Denmark to force such a change without the inhabitants' consent. Any such transfer would need to be a free and informed decision of the Greenlandic people who currently inhabit the land.
Challenges with Historical Precedents
The historical acquisition of Alaska differs fundamentally from any current scenario involving Greenland. Alaska, before the 1867 sale, had few Indigenous inhabitants and was largely unpopulated. Russia had claimed the land but had minimal interaction with its native peoples. There was no prior governance or established rights framework to consider.
Greenland, by contrast, is a living, inhabited territory with its own governance and recognized rights. The indigenous population, the Inuit, own the land. As such, any attempt to change Greenland's status would need to involve a democratic process, including a referendum among the inhabitants. It cannot be simply bought or sold like land in the 19th century.
Conclusion
The purchase of Greenland from Denmark is not feasible under modern international law. The Inuit people who inhabit the land have inalienable rights, and any change in status would need to be done with their explicit consent. This is in stark contrast to historical land acquisitions, which often ignored the rights and sovereignty of Indigenous peoples.
The United States and Denmark should respect the rights of the Greenlandic people and engage in respectful dialogue to address any future political aspirations or movements by the residents. The current standing of Greenland is firmly grounded in international law and human rights principles, making any unilateral change unacceptable and illegal.