ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

Almost since the start of his second term, President Trump has repeatedly said that the U.S. intends to take control of Greenland “for national security reasons.� The rhetoric from the President and his aides has increased since the beginning of the year, with White House official Steven Miller telling CNN that “Greenland rightfully belongs to the United States� and the White House spokesperson saying, “Utilizing the U.S. military is always an option.�

Greenland has been a Danish territory since 1814 and gained home rule, with its own Prime Minister, in 1979. In response to the statements from the U.S., Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen of Greenland have strongly pushed back against Mr. Trump’s campaign to take the territory. Denmark is a founding member of NATO and said that a U.S. attack on Greenland would mean the end of that treaty organization. Other European allies have swiftly come to the support of the Danish position.

Given the profound consequences of a U.S. attack on a democratic country and long-time ally, it is imperative that the Trump Administration engage in a thorough discussion with Congress and the American people if it intends to follow through on its threat to annex Greenland. Questions which need to be answered include:

— What is the nature of the national security threat that requires the U.S. to incorporate Greenland as a U.S. territory?

— Given that the U.S. already has military facilities in Greenland, and Denmark has indicated it is willing to work with the U.S. to expand or add to these facilities, why is it necessary to annex the territory?

— Would the people of Greenland have a say in whether the U.S. takes these steps?

— What would the status of Greenland be?

— What would the cost be to U.S. citizens to maintain a new territory and supply the benefits to Greenland currently provided by Denmark?

— Under what aspect of international law would annexation be taken?

— If NATO is dissolved as a result of U.S. action against a fellow NATO member, is overall U.S. security enhanced?

— Since the security concerns seem to involve potential threats from Russia and China in the Arctic, and NATO members Canada, Finland, Sweden and Norway all have territory bordering the Arctic, how would the dissolution of NATO impact the overall security in the Arctic?

— What are the potential impacts on U.S. alliances outside of NATO? Are there ways to mitigate any negative effects?

— Does annexation of Greenland risk a form of cold war with Europe?

— If other nations make similar claims to territory based on ‘national security interests,’ what would the U.S. response be?

In recent years, the American people have learned the severe financial, human and reputational costs of rushing into foreign conflicts. Doing so in circumstances that could dissolve the alliance system that helped the U.S. win World War Two and the Cold War would plunge us into a new global situation in which our country stands alone. It is vital for the Administration to engage in thorough public discussion and analysis to ensure popular support for such a revolutionary change in how the U.S. engages with the world.