WASHINGTON, D.C. – At today’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing on the growing geopolitical importance of Greenland and the Arctic, Senate Republicans highlighted the many potential economic and security benefits of an acquisition of Greenland by the United States.

Sen. Cruz Raises Questions on Benefits for Denmark, Greenlanders in Considering Acquisition

(watch)

Chairman Ted Cruz: “If the United States were to go forward with attempting to require agreement, it would likely require the active agreement of Denmark and also the vote of the people of Greenland that this was a mutually beneficial step. Let’s focus initially on the first part, from the perspective of Denmark, what are the benefits to Denmark of considering this negotiation?”

Mr. Gray: “I would say Denmark has failed, unfortunately, to provide the type of security that the alliance that NATO, that we all need in the Greenland region in the Arctic, for a long time. So, having a U.S. commitment to take on some of that security burden would be beneficial to Denmark based on their behavior to date. I know they’ve recently increased some defense spending relative to Greenland, that’s great, but we have a pattern of decades of neglect, so I would think that would be to their benefit…Denmark is not going to have as a constituent part Greenland over the long term…the Greenlanders have made that clear. So, the question is, what is the security architecture that’s going to be in place at that ultimate point of independence? And it’s not in Denmark’s interest, just as it’s not in our interest, to have a vacuum that is filled by China and Russia.”

Chairman Ted Cruz: “So, if I’m understanding your testimony correctly, there are three principal benefits to Denmark of considering selling Greenland’s territory to the United States. The first is that their existing defense obligations put significant costs on Denmark, costs that are a real burden to the government of Denmark and the people of Denmark. The second is if the United States were to shoulder the cost of providing that defense, defense.... defense of Greenland rather, would also significantly increase the defense and security of Denmark and limiting the role of Russia and China in the Arctic also is to the defense benefit of Denmark. But number three, and this is an important point you made, we are seeing a growing independence movement in Greenland. If Denmark were to negotiate today with the Trump administration to sell the territory of Greenland to the United States, it would presumably be able to negotiate some substantial sum of money.”

Mr. Gray: “I believe we should take the Greenlanders at their word, that they will be an independent country at some point. And ultimately, sir, it is not in Denmark’s interest to leave a security vacuum in the high north. In addition to your point about the cost, they will suffer as much as anyone from having what I think is the 100 percent predictable outcome of China and Russia stepping into that vacuum if we don’t have some sort of clear security architecture in place.”

Sen. Sheehy Warns of U.S. Adversaries Expanding Footprint in Regions Like the Arctic

Sen. Sheehy: “The only constant is change and, right now, we’re seeing aggressive territorial expansion efforts from Russia, obviously, through force, and China is, literally, building islands to expand its sphere of influence, not just in the South China Sea, but, as you correctly pointed out, using every tool at its disposal to grow its influence elsewhere. I think the discussion we’re having here is a common sense discussion about how we can maneuver ourselves to ensure that extremely important piece of real estate, which, at the end of the day, is what we’re discussing, whether it’s data centers, whether it’s critical minerals, whether it’s shipping lanes, does not fall into the wrong hands… What’s the best approach to achieve what we think the best outcome can be, so that we do not allow Greenland to become a territory of our adversaries in the very near future?”

Mr. Gray: “I agree with you completely that the threat is very real. And the threat of both Russian and Chinese penetration in Greenland, and not just in Greenland, but in the high north more generally, is something we have to be very attuned to. We’ve seen it, not just in Greenland, but in the Faroe Islands. We’ve seen it in Svalbard. We’ve seen it all over that high north region. To me, the number one objective of the United States in Greenland has to be the same as it’s been since the 1860s, which is to prevent, deny, access, and control to an adversary power who would use that space to threaten our homeland and our hemisphere.”

Sen. Moreno Points to Importance of Discussion of Greenland Acquisition, Slams Accusations of Discussion as ‘Click-Bait’

Sen. Moreno: “Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have called President Trump’s desire to purchase Greenland a click-bait distraction. Yes or no, do you characterize this conversation as a click-bait distraction?”

Mr. Gray: “No, and it wasn’t when Harry Truman or Andrew Johnson or Dwight Eisenhower did it either.”

Mr. Marchese: “No sir, we have a lot of mineral potential there and it’s certainly one of the options we have moving forward.”

Dr. Pincus: “Not at all, and I would note that President Trump’s expressed interest in Greenland during his first administration yielded very significant steps forward in the U.S.-Greenland relationship. I would point to the reopening of our consulate in Nuuk as a landmark accomplishment that has done tremendous good for the U.S.-Greenland relationship. That was a direct result of his intervention in his first term.”

Sen. Blackburn Raises Need to Strengthen U.S.- Greenland Ties Amid Rising Chinese Communist Party’s Influence

Sen. Blackburn: “Many of us have seen what China has done in Africa around Djibouti with the port that is there, and also in Latin America. And we have listened to Xi Jinping and the CCP leadership talk about the Polar Silk Road and putting this as a part of their Belt and Road Initiative. So, I’d like for you to talk about why it is important that we strengthen this bond with Greenland and pay more attention to this because of the impact of the CCP.”

Mr. Gray: “This is a playbook that the Chinese Communist Party run. They do it all over the world. I’ve seen it personally in the South Pacific. They do it in Latin America. They do it in Southeast Asia, in Sub-Saharan Africa. They start by you can call it, the Belt and Road Initiative, you can call it the Polar Silk Road, whatever terminology they want to use. But what it is, is predatory lending, primarily usurious interest rates for what we often call white elephant projects, projects that very often serve no economic purpose... And once they have the debt diplomacy, ma’am, the Chinese come in and use that as -- for coercive political control over small developing states that can’t push back and don’t have the ability to counter the CCP’s malign influence. And what I’m so concerned about and why I think this topic is so critical is that something very similar we’re beginning to see bits and pieces of this in the high north, in the Faroe Islands, in Greenland, to some extent, in recent years. We’ve seen it in Svalbard. We’ve seen it in Iceland. This is beginning to happen. The Chinese are signaling their intention to pursue this more actively, and that’s why we have -- because we know the playbook, we need to be prepared to push back proactively.”

Sen. Sullivan Points to Growing Incursions by Russia, China in Arctic Region

Sen. Sullivan: “In the last three years, we have had an enormous amount of Russian incursions in our airspace, America’s airspace…just on icebreakers, Russia has 54, some of which are nuclear, many of which aren’t weaponized. We have two and one is broken. You think that’s decent strength when it comes to icebreakers?”

Mr. Gray: “It isn’t…obviously the icebreakers are key, particularly when we think about what the adversaries are doing…We have to have Arctic war fighting capacity and deterrence as a much higher-level priority.”

Sen. Sullivan: “We have very little infrastructure from which to launch military, economic, icebreaker capabilities. So, maybe just a quick question for all the panelists. Do we need more infrastructure in America’s Arctic?”

Mr. Gray: “We have to have more infrastructure, not just from a defensive presence standpoint to protect our homeland, but also from a power projection standpoint. We’ve allowed our Arctic infrastructure, in addition to a lot of our -- just our general defense industrial infrastructure to atrophy. I think this would be a huge way to boost our capacity to deter in the Arctic.”

Dr. Mercer: “America is the world’s leader in scientific research and that’s certainly true in the polar regions. We rely on, heavily, in order to be the leader in research in the polar regions, on the Coast Guard icebreakers, the LC-130 aircraft, the C-17 aircraft, the space-based Pituffik in Greenland.”

Sen. Schmitt Argues in Favor of Supporting Greenland, Arctic Allies in Face of Mounting Threats

Sen. Schmitt: “Reality is the real threat in the Arctic is Russia and China, and it is growing. Russia has reactivated Soviet era bases, expanded its nuclear icebreaker fleet, and sent submarines in the Greenlandic waters, one of which was only detected by chance. China, despite being 900 miles away, calls itself a Near-Arctic state. It is issuing or is using its Polar Silk Road to expand its influence over Greenland’s infrastructure. Despite these mounting threats, Denmark has failed to provide adequate security for Greenland…The Arctic is a key frontier in global competition, and Greenland is central to U.S. security. Whether we acquire Greenland, increase military presence, economic investment, or formalize security arrangements, we must ensure Greenland’s future aligns with U.S. interests -- not Beijing’s and not Moscow’s. Whether through increased military presence, economic investment, or formalized security arrangements, we must act now to secure the Arctic for ourselves and our allies…How would you compare that to the One Belt, One Road initiative?”

Mr. Gray: “I think of it as just the Arctic holder, adjunct of Belt and Road. I think it’s just we know the playbook…this is what the Chinese do to gain economic and enforce political influence.”

###