The Arctic is ground-zero for climate change. Chinese and Russian investors and military personnel have been ramping up their attention to Greenland and the rest of the Circle for several years now as land formerly uninhabitable becomes warmer due to the planet's hotter temperatures. It is natural for the U.S., the world's foremost naval power, to have an interest in the Arctic's largest isolated landmass. What was not natural was the Trump Administration's approach.

Land acquisitions are not typical in 21st century international affairs. Most of the world, especially given the tendency of nationalistic governments to strictly enforce borders and establish ethnic-national identities, has been divided into defined nation states. Whether these states are effective, stable, and influential is a question for another paper, or maybe a book. What is obvious is that nearly every landmass in the world belongs to some government or another. Territorial seizures, like Russia's 2014 Annexation of Crimea, are rare and carry immediate ramifications. Secession, such as the division of authority between local actors - in the case of the former Czechoslovakia, Iraq, and Sudan, are comparatively frequent, but often establish internationally-recognized borders where there were informal ones before. However, none of these similar cases reflects what the U.S. wanted to achieve in Greenland. The Trump Administration did not want to invade (yet) or divide Greenland from their de jure colonial rulers, Denmark. They wanted a trade - as if Greenland were an exchangeable good. The closest modern example might be Hong Kong, which was transferred from British rule to Chinese in 1999, per the terms of an agreement signed a century earlier. Even this is a poor example, as Hong Kong was a single city - not a continent-sized island, it had been 'leased' by the British, and had previously held deep historical and cultural ties to the country from which it had been taken. Even two decades later, geopolitical reverberations from that exchange continue to dominate the region's affairs. Treating Greenland like it was a herd of cattle to be traded away was an exceptionally poor move on behalf of the Trump Administration, especially because of the autonomously-led 75,000 people currently living on the island who have a history of abuses from colonial powers. This move is even more ridiculous when you consider that Greenland and Denmark both individually have immense strategic value for the United States, which has likely soured with the President's unwise exchange.

Denmark is a very important U.S. ally - despite the fact that most Americans don't think of it beyond the fact that it's snowy and socialist (ish). As a member of NATO, Denmark has long served as an American buttress against Russia. It possesses sole command of one of the world's seven strategic naval chokepoints - the Straits of Skagerrak. As a result, the Danish are one of the main reasons the Russians cannot exercise naval power out of their second largest city: St. Petersburg. They have also played a role in limiting Moscow's attempts to dominate Europe's energy sector by refusing to allow Eastern technicians to build the Nord Stream 2 pipeline through Danish waters. This is a project U.S. policymakers from the Obama-era have opposed, concerns that the Germans have ignored. The Danish have not, and refused the Russians in trade agreements despite the cheaper energy it would have brought them (the Danish have some of the most expensive energy prices in the world). Denmark is also a valuable ally in other regions of the world, where their naval forces assist in limiting rogue Iranian agents in the Middle East and support American troops in Iraq. Trump publicly calling Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredericksen 'nasty' did nothing to sponsor goodwill between the two allied nations. What's more ironic - or perhaps unfortunate for Trump - is that Frederiksen's Government is much more alike to Trump's than he realizes. Frederiksen became Denmark's youngest Prime Minister by running on a fervent anti-immigrant platform and is wary of China and Russia. She's called for closer integration with the U.S. in the European Union and her party possesses many populist tendencies.

Onto Greenland. On the surface, Trump's proposal was a bit ridiculous. Buying a self-governing territory of another nation? That doesn't happen in the 21st century. Going deeper into U.S. history, you'll actually find that the idea has a precedent. Several U.S. administrations have expressed interest in acquiring Greenland before due to its important geostrategic position in the Arctic and between North America and Europe. The Truman Administration made a formal offer to Copenhagen to purchase the island after World War II. The Reagan Administration sought to exploit discontent between the Greenlanders and Denmark. The island itself is growing in importance due to climate change. Most of Greenland - contrary to its paradoxical name, is covered in permafrost and ice. With the planet warming, valuable minerals that could be exploited for high-tech manufacturing are now available to mine. Greenland has attracted the attention of American geopolitical rivals like China and Russia, the former of which has actually begun to build several airports on the island and the latter that has targeted the island for decades. It actually does make a fair amount of sense for Washington to be concerned about Greenland in the wake of these realities.

Trump has now squashed any normal attempt to increase American influence over Greenland. By insulting both the people of Greenland by implying they were for sale, and publicly demeaning the Prime Minister of Denmark, it is unlikely that any near-term policy will prove optimal for American foreign policy interests. His naive approach to international relations has likely left Foggy Bottom wincing. There are several approaches that the Trump Administration could have taken to actually meaningfully expanding American interests in the area. The first is acknowledging that Greenland painfully needs foreign direct investment. The Danish Government currently subsidizes the living needs of the native Greenlanders and the other inhabitants of the island to the tune of $500 million USD a year. The capital of Greenland, Nuuk, has begun ramping up marketing campaigns to attract investment given the new world realities. They have clearly caught Moscow and Beijing's attentions. Denmark has been a fantastic American ally for decades, and the government in Copenhagen would have reacted warmly to a renewed collaboration between the American Embassy in Copenhagen's Economic Bureau and the Danish Commerce Ministry. The State Department and Commerce Department both have established institutions for the facilitation of talks between American business interests and foreign gatekeepers to valuable natural resources. The Trump Administration should have taken advantage of these.

Second, none of this should have been published in mainstream media. Trump seems to think that policy dictated by tweet is effective, but it has the opposite effect on policymakers by obscuring what his actual views are. Investments depend on stability and kept promises. If investors and foreign gatekeepers are prevented from having complete information and assurances of follow-throughs, they will not participate in any effort to expand American interests. Careful details should have been arranged ahead of time - with due transparency to whoever was interested, but it absolutely should not have been done under the media spotlight and ridicule of Trump potentially building a gaudy tower in Nuuk. It is a well-established business principle that you shouldn't show all your cards before you negotiate, and Trump not only flashed his hand, but also spit in the face of his fellow players.

Third, the Administration's rhetoric was highly offensive to both the Greenlanders and the Danish. The Greenlanders are sick of being referred to as being 'for sale.' Any European Affairs expert in the State Department could have told Trump that. What they want is foreign direct investment. They're already a self-governing territory, they just need money. Trump should never have referred to an island full of an indigenous, sovereign population as being up for grabs. This was further exacerbated by the fact that Trump made his offer to Copenhagen and not Nuuk, likely conjuring up images of colonialism for much of the world. Not only was this harmful for any immediate need for Greenland's resources and position, but it was also problematic for America's position as the global guaranteer of freedom. Part of the reason that we are able to act as a mediator between hostile parties is because we're seen as different from the racist, elitist colonial powers and not involved in territorial land grabs. Unless we directly contradict that narrative - as Trump has done - most nations are willing to give Washington the benefit of the doubt in problem solving.

The United States has been dealt an excellent hand. We are the world's largest economy and military, and have a variety of strong, historical relationships with established governments around the world. We are able to act as global arbitrators because of our unique position as both a former colonial holding, a symbol of democracy, and the savior of Europe in the World Wars. Our coalition is broad and we have excellent leverage. It is sad to see this all undermined by a President who, at best, is simply neglectful of the knowledge needed to run this system. We must be better at maintaining our grand strategy if we are to remain in this favorable position for the near and long term.