Joe Biden / Greenland Crisis / 2019-08-20

Position

“Greenland is not for sale, and the idea of buying it or coercing a NATO ally to hand it over is absurd. Denmark is one of our closest allies. We already have defense cooperation agreements that give us the strategic access we need. You strengthen alliances by honoring sovereignty, not by threatening to take your allies' territory. The way to address Arctic security is through NATO, not through land grabs.”

Contributing sources

[article] Biden calls Trump's Greenland gambit 'absurd' as Democrats pile on — 2019-08-21[article] U.S. Security Cooperation with Denmark — 2023-06-15

Position from 2019-08-20

existing-agreements-sufficientHigh

Existing defense agreements and alliance structures already address the strategic interests that territorial expansion claims to serve

Their wording: “We already have Pituffik Space Base, we have expanded defense cooperation with Denmark, and NATO's Article 5 covers Greenland. We have the strategic access we need without buying or coercing anyone's territory.”

Biden treats the existing defense infrastructure in Greenland as evidence that territorial acquisition is unnecessary. The 1951 defense agreement, the 2023 expanded cooperation agreement, and NATO coverage provide the military access, early warning capability, and strategic positioning that acquisition proponents claim to seek.

Also held by (2)
Ben Shapiro — Shapiro holds this from a rationalist cost-benefit framework: if the stated goal is military access and rare earth security, and existing agreements already provide that, the acquisition is a solution in search of a problemJon Stewart — Stewart uses sarcasm to expose that the strategic rationale for acquisition is undermined by the existence of the very alliance the acquisition would destroy - NATO already provides the Arctic security framework Trump claims to need
Incompatible with (2)
“US control of Greenland is a strategic necessity for Arctic security and rare earth mineral access”Low

held by Marco Rubio, Donald Trump

“Great powers have the right to expand territory when strategic interests demand it”Low

held by John Mearsheimer, Marco Rubio, Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump

sovereignty-inviolableMed

National sovereignty is inviolable under international law; no state has the right to militarily intervene in another state or abduct its leader, regardless of that government's character

Their wording: “You cannot claim to defend sovereignty in Ukraine while threatening to violate it in Greenland. Sovereignty means something, or it means nothing. Denmark is a sovereign ally and Greenland's future is for the Greenlandic people to decide.”

Biden applies the same sovereignty principle to Greenland that he uses to justify Ukraine support, creating logical consistency across his foreign policy positions. He views Trump's Greenland proposal as undermining the very norms the US invokes to lead the Western alliance.

Also held by (12)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — AOC applies anti-imperialist principles consistently, arguing that even an authoritarian government cannot be replaced by external military force without violating the people's fundamental right to self-governanceJoe Biden — Biden applies the sovereignty principle to constrain US military intervention in Venezuela, creating consistency with his Ukraine and Greenland positions. He treats sovereignty violations as corrosive to the international order regardless of the target government's character.Tucker Carlson — Carlson holds this not from an internationalist perspective but from a consistency argument - if the US violates sovereignty, it can no longer credibly condemn Russia or China for doing the sameTulsi Gabbard — Gabbard holds this as a fundamental principle derived from her military service - she has seen firsthand that violating sovereignty produces worse outcomes than the regimes being replacedJackson Hinkle — Hinkle frames the Maduro capture as a violation of sovereignty within a pattern of US imperial interventionsJohn Mearsheimer — Mearsheimer frames the abduction of a sitting head of state as a fundamental violation of the international order that sets dangerous precedentsGavin Newsom — Newsom holds this as an institutional Democrat who frames foreign policy through legal and governance norms, arguing that US credibility depends on consistent application of the rules it championsCandace Owens — Framing the operation as a hostile takeover directly implies sovereignty violationScott Ritter — Ritter frames the operation as establishing a new doctrine of unilateral US regime change in the AmericasBernie Sanders — Sanders rejects US imperial prerogative over other nations while explicitly not defending Maduro's regimeJon Stewart — Stewart mocks the casualness with which the operation was received, implying Americans have become desensitized to sovereignty violationsCenk Uygur — Uygur characterizes the Maduro capture as a kidnapping rather than a military operation or law enforcement action
Incompatible with (1)
“The United States has the right and strategic interest to dominate the Western Hemisphere and remove hostile regimes in its backyard”Low

held by Nick Fuentes, Lindsey Graham, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump, JD Vance, Matt Walsh