US has a long history of strategic land purchases

One sovereign nation purchasing land from another. This method of gaining territory had long been forgotten. But US President Donald Trump has revived it with Greenland. While everyone in Europe and elsewhere, perhaps by habit, has rejected the idea, I tend to ask myself: if they were capable, wouldn’t they want to do it too? Yet the shift in global power is now holding them back. History shows that the powerful have always traded lands. Now, amid a shifting global order, the concept is worth evaluating again. After all, which is better: acquiring land by war or by trade?

It is useful to highlight that this is not the first time Denmark and the US have faced a potential land deal. The US purchased the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917 for $25 million. At the time, President Woodrow Wilson pushed for the deal mainly out of concern that Germany might seize control of these islands. In the case of Greenland, it is Chinese and Russian influence that is considered to pose a great threat to American national security. If we take Greenland and the opening of sea routes during certain seasons, it exposes the US in a similar way.

Exchanging or buying land was mostly a tool of the European colonial powers. One of the most remarkable deals happened between Spain and Portugal and is known as the Treaty of Tordesillas. The two countries controlled much of the land and seas in the 1400s and 1500s. In 1494, to settle territorial issues and avoid wars, they decided to split the world between them. Portugal kept Brazil, while Spain benefited from the split and went on to rule most of South America. The interesting and evident point is that, as both empires weakened, the treaty lost significance.

During all these times, the people living on the lands that were bought, exchanged or bartered had no say in their fate

Khaled Abou Zahr

Much later and for pretty much the same reasons, as France and Britain’s global power grew, they too exchanged and bought territories. The 18th-century Treaty of Paris saw France cede Canada to Britain in exchange for retaining its islands in the Caribbean, which were judged more economically valuable at the time. Through wars, it lost control for a time, but France later regained territories such as Guadeloupe and Martinique, which today remain overseas departments of France, while Britain consolidated its dominance in North America and India. The same can be said about the Netherlands, Belgium and all colonizing powers.

Power and hard power mean everything when it comes to territories. Hence, at the end of the First World War, under the Treaty of Versailles, all of Germany’s colonial holdings in Africa and the Pacific were redistributed between the victors, namely Britain, France, Japan, Australia and South Africa, as mandates under the League of Nations, the predecessor to the UN. Following the Second World War, as all these European powers declined, the colonies gained independence.

The US has acquired several significant territories through purchase rather than war or annexation. In 1803, it bought Louisiana from France, which instantly doubled the size of the country by adding about 2.1 million sq. km of land, for $15 million. Then, in 1867, it acquired Alaska from the Russian Empire, adding another 1.5 million sq. km, for $7.2 million. This is also a resource-rich territory.

Less consequentially, the US added about 76,800 sq. km in southern Arizona and New Mexico with the $10 million Gadsden Purchase from Mexico in 1854. This purchase was intended to facilitate a southern transcontinental railroad. Finally, as previously mentioned, the Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands) were purchased from Denmark in 1917.

So, for the US establishment, land purchases have been quite significant and strategic. The goal is either to secure strategic naval or military positions or to ensure national security.

To the US’ advantage, Greenland is already a semi-autonomous territory with a growing political will for independence

Khaled Abou Zahr

Meanwhile, throughout history, land concessions have been a tool to permit powerful nations to control or utilize territory within another sovereign state without outright annexation. The most famous is probably the 99-year British lease of Hong Kong, which ended in 1997. When China regained its rightful sovereignty over the island, the world was very different to when the treaty was signed — and it was China that was the greater power. One can only wonder that, if this were not the case, would this concession have been extended? We cannot rewrite history, but I am pretty sure it would have.

Even today, particularly in Africa, this situation can apply to a major asset such as a port or a natural resource, effectively making the concession holder the true power in the country. This also raises the question of genuine sovereignty.

It is very clear that, during all these times, the people living on the lands that were bought, exchanged or bartered had no say in their fate. This is also the case in terms of military clashes due to land disputes.

And so, when looking at the Greenland issue, it poses a clear question: How can the US get the Greenlanders on its side? This is a very, very small population, estimated to be no more than about 57,000 people. It is difficult to see the US gaining control of Greenland without a deal or agreement. To the US’ advantage, Greenland is already a semi-autonomous territory with a strong and growing political will for independence. This offers a potential way for a greater anchoring with the US over Denmark or Europe, or even becoming a full US state.

Trump has brought back a potential for growth of the US that stopped many years ago. It is, in a way, no longer a sovereign play like two centuries ago, but more like a corporate acquisition. For Greenland and other territories, the US is clearly looking to protect and place the extended Americas — North and South — in a stronger defensive posture, as well as guaranteeing access to resources and the safety of logistics routes.

Is it a sign of not being able to continue holding the global “Pax Americana” and wanting to avoid the fate of the declining Europeans? I would not bet against the US, but beyond this, if negotiations and common economic interests can be brought forward to solve territorial disputes, this is not a bad thing, especially amid a change in the balance of power worldwide.

• Khaled Abou Zahr is the founder of SpaceQuest Ventures, a space-focused investment platform. He is CEO of EurabiaMedia and editor of Al-Watan Al-Arabi.