Does the US pay Greenland/Denmark rent for the base?
Is there an agreement/treaty that says Denmark must allow the presence of the base indefinitely?
How big a negative effect would there be on the economy of Greenland if the US left (i.e. what does the presence of the base now bring them and what percent of the Greenland GDP is that?).
Thanks,
they only have 56k population in all of Greenland. It’s so remote I would think almost everything at the base is shipped from the US so it probably doesn’t have much impact on their economy.
The base at Thule has an interesting history. During WWII, the Germans invaded Denmark, and the Danish ambassador (now in exile) negotiated a treaty allowing the US to establish a base in Greenland in 1941. The German-controlled Danish government charged the involved ministers with high treason for this, but of course the US only recognized the exiled Danes as the legitimate rulers of Greenland.
After the war, liberated Denmark ratified the treaty and dropped the treason charges. The treaty (with some modifications) became part of the NATO infrastructure in 1949 and remains in force.
Are there host country nationals that work at Thule? Most foreign U.S. installations inject money into the local economy. I guess Thule could be an exception.
AIUI, Greenland is a considerable net economic loss for Denmark. I guess you could subtract economic aid from fishing revenues from the expanded EEZ Greenland allows Denmark to help arrive at a true cost of ownership.
The Thule BMEWS is very useful to the US, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a hypothetical market value rent paid to Denmark for its use would exceed the value of the aid Denmark sends to Greenland.
Are there significant rare earths/Lithium/O&G available within its territory/EEZ?
Rare earth elements, yes. Not sure about lithium, petroleum, or natural gas.
The village that used to be at the site of Thule AFB was called Pituffik. When the base was built, the locals were forcibly located to a new site called Qaanaaq further north.
There are apparently some inhabitants that are involved in tours in the area, but I see no mention of actually working on the base or permanently inhabiting the immediate area.
Another fun things about Denmark, the US and another former Danish possession: Iceland. Iceland was a mainly independent country, sharing certain things, at the start of WWII. When Denmark fell, the Brits invaded Iceland to keep the Nazis away. But maintaining an occupation was a drain, so they turned it over to the US. On July 7, 1941. Note that this was 5 months before Pearl Harbor. During the US occupation, Iceland ended the last formal connection to Denmark.
Britain also invaded a more closely-held part of Denmark during WWII: the Faroe Islands. For an occupation, it seems to have been quite an amicable one.
Rare earth elements aren’t much of an economic draw. They’re found all over the place, just in low concentrations, so rare earth mines tend to be located where they’re easy to get to and labor is cheap. Greenland would be neither.
Wikipedia says there are 243 permanent staff at the base. However, this article put the number at 143 Americans, 400 Danes, 50 Greenlanders, and 3 Canadians. The nearest town is 65 miles away, so there’s little effect on the economy as a whole.
OTOH the U.S. does maintain a first-class airfield and a harbor that’s open during the summer, so Greenland gets some benefit from the infrastructure that serves the northwest part of the island.
Thule is strategically important enough that there are almost no public references to its strategic significance in twenty first century military plans. The twentieth century significance is more or less irrelevant in actual fact, but provide a bulletproof smokescreen. Fifteen days of intensive air transport could alter that significance, and requires no public acknowledge or approval. It propels the strategic significance of Denmark to a far higher importance. Historically that would be a small, and certainly less risky factor. Our current leadership undermines that reliability. Their current leadership seems to be up to the challenge.
Tris
Was that part of FDR’s “Bases for ships” where the USA gave the British destroyers and they gave the US leases on bases? Of course, the USA wanted to protect their new bases from the Germans.
No, those bases were in Newfoundland, Bermuda and the Caribbean.
Just an amusing side story on this. During the war, the US had a naval weather station on Greenland and the father of a good friend of mine was in charge of it. One day a German sub came by to look and got trapped in the ice. When it couldn’t get out, they surrendered! My friend’s father had no facilities to deal with the captured crew and finally put the captain in the brig and radioed the naval command who sent a plane up the take the crew away and a team up to examine the sub carefully.
The only relevant and active bilateral treaty or agreement that I see from the US embassy site’s list is Defense of Greenland: Agreement Between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, April 27, 1951
That agreement lists the possibility of agreements that modify the terms. None are referenced unless it’s buried in something that doesn’t sound related. That 1951 agreement provided for the building and opening of Thule. What that agreement says about compensation for using bases in Article II
It doesn’t look like we’re paying just to use Thule unless there’s a specific agreement to do so that I missed. It also doesn’t look like we’re paying when we use Danish controlled bases, as a general rule.
Thanks for all your responses.
So, to summarize, the Danes/Greenlanders receive no rent for the base and the local economy doesn’t benefit from its presence. Looks like Trump wouldn’t have a lot of economic leverage if the US was told to take a hike, although it’s not clear to me what mechanism Denmark would have to physically remove them.
On the other hand, I’m also not sure that Denmark would want to repudiate its NATO treaty obligation which I now realize includes permitting the continuing American presence at Thule (assuming it trusts the current US administration to honour its commitment to defend Denmark in the event of an attack).