The latter third of the 19th century saw a vast European “scramble for Africa,” as advances in technology, medicine, and communications allowed European explorers and colonizers to penetrate deeper into the heretofore impenetrable interior of the continent.  

The potential for conflict between competing European powers, as well as perhaps a desire to exploit such conflict, inspired German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to invite European nations, as well as the United States and the Ottoman Empire, to a conference in Berlin in 1884 to better manage European claims within Africa.  

Half of those nations present came away without any African claims, but the conference did perhaps, in part, kick off 30-plus years of vigorous European conquest that rapidly divided Africa into numerous spheres of influence. These boundaries still form the basis for much of modern-day Africa’s map.  

A similar combination of improved technology, communications, and climate change, as well as the desire to exploit resources, has perhaps begun a similar scramble for the Arctic, where many nations now compete for influence and control of territory that was formerly unreachable for most of the year.  

The present center of gravity of this new geopolitical condition has been Greenland, the world’s largest island and long a possession of the Kingdom of Denmark, although also the home to many allied troops and bases during the Second World War and Cold War eras. Whoever has the right to control, and whatever happens next, there is no question that inescapable physical changes have shifted competition for resources and more easily navigable sea routes toward the Arctic.  

So, what are the security implications for the island and its people, as well as other world powers? 

Missile Defense Geography 

In the 1950’s, the United States planned to get an edge in nuclear weapons employment through the potential construction of a vast system of underground and under-ice caves in Northern Greenland, where missile flight time to the Soviet Union was much shorter for a land-based nuclear weapon than from the continental US.  

The initial effort of Project Ice Worm, as it was named, was Camp Century, an under-ice US research base run by the US Army and powered by a truck-sized nuclear reactor. Scientific research, however, suggested the glacier where the base would be built was moving too much to allow for missile basing, and the idea of Arctic-based nuclear missiles was shelved by the mid-1960s. Camp Century was dismantled in 1966.  

But the island remains critical. Many ballistic missile pathways over the North Pole cross or pass close to Greenland, making it just as important to missile defense as it once potentially was to missile offense. Missile defense weapons placed in Greenland could act sooner and perhaps more effectively against a nuclear weapons attack on the US by Russia or China than those based further south within the continental United States. 

Climate Change Affects Greenland 

How and where a missile defense system might be set up in Greenland may depend largely on the effects of climate change that continue to disrupt the ice sheets covering the island. Climate change outside of Greenland has also been a key driver in its evolution into a strategic geography.  

Melting ice across the Arctic has opened significant navigable spaces once ice-covered for most of the year. The presence of natural resources and competition could drive the creation of naval and air bases on the island, particularly on the island’s eastern coast, opposite the Greenland and Norwegian Seas. Such bases could provide further anti-submarine patrols to prevent Russian access to the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) Gap that provides entry from the High North into the North Atlantic.  

Commerce in the form of fishing is also likely to alter, as climate change across the region has driven some species of fish, notably the mackerel, tuna, and halibut populations, northward. Given that fish represent the main source of protein for 17% of the world’s population, and that conflicts over fishing rights, such as the 1960s-era Icelandic-UK Cod Wars can bring allies to the point of conflict, the change in fish populations around Greenland is likely to be a source of international competition in the future. 

Mining 

Greenland is also a natural resources wonderland, with some estimates suggesting it may have an untapped oil reserve of “31bn barrels of oil-equivalent in hydrocarbons — similar to the US’s entire volume of proven crude oil reserves.” Its also the home to one of the world’s most significant concentrations of rare earth minerals, as well as large iron deposits occurring naturally within the bedrock. The Greenland government’s own website describes the island as: “An underexplored, mineral-rich country with a competitive licensing framework, stable political environment, low investment risk and pro-mining population and government.”  

Roads and port facilities to extract these, however, are sparse, and without the environmental regulations prevalent in Western countries, extraction could prove a pollution nightmare and create severe ecological damage. Despite geographical challenges, it is easy to see that Greenland, like Africa in the 1880’s, is no longer a hidden continent and is likely ripe for economic exploitation. It would certainly be more beneficial for Western/democratic nations to do this as opposed to Russia or China, nations known for creating ecological disasters at sea and ashore in the wake of their exploitation efforts.  

The island is now at the glacis of what could be one of the most significant mineral extraction efforts of the past century, and it is essential that this effort take place under environmentally friendly regulation and not those of authoritarian states.  

The scramble for Africa produced a colonial and geopolitical mess that has bedeviled the world since the end of World War II. History will no doubt judge the development of Greenland and the treatment of its environment and peoples by that past standard.  

Greenland’s geopolitical and economic importance will likely grow over the 21^st century, and it is incumbent on world leaders to ensure the process proceeds in a measured and responsible manner.  

Dr. Steven Wills currently serves as a navalist for the Center for Maritime Strategy at the Navy League of the US. He is an expert in US Navy strategy and policy. Wills had a 20-year career as an active-duty US Navy officer at sea and on shore-based assignments to the Defense Intelligence Agency and NATO. 

Europe’s Edge is CEPA’s online journal covering critical topics on the foreign policy docket across Europe and North America. All opinions expressed on Europe’s Edge are those of the author alone and may not represent those of the institutions they represent or the Center for European Policy Analysis. CEPA maintains a strict intellectual independence policy across all its projects and publications.

The post The Scramble for the Arctic — Greenland and Beyond  appeared first on CEPA.