Trump's Hidden Motive Behind Greenland: Arctic Ocean Submarine Cables [Current Affairs Show]

Trump Shifts to Arctic Security Cooperation
Russia Threatens Global Submarine Cable Security

■ Broadcast: The Asia Business Daily 'So Jongseop's Current Affairs Show'

■ Host: Political Specialist So Jongseop

■ Director: Producer Lee Miri

■ Guest: Reporter Lee Hyunwoo

The controversy surrounding former U.S. President Donald Trump's attempt to annex Greenland, which shocked the world, has come to a close. President Trump announced that he had directly established a framework for agreement with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and declared that he would withdraw all tariffs imposed on European countries that opposed the annexation of Greenland. At one point, there were even concerns that the U.S. and Europe might enter into a full-scale war for the first time in history, but fortunately, the situation did not escalate to that extent. As the crisis was suddenly resolved, global stock markets experienced a dramatic plunge followed by a rapid rebound.

Trump, who threatened to use military force... suddenly proposes Arctic security cooperation

AP Yonhap News

President Trump initially took a hardline stance, stating that he would consider mobilizing military force to seize control of Greenland. However, he abruptly changed his position and proposed that NATO member states cooperate on Arctic security. He now emphasizes that the agreement with the NATO Secretary General has been successfully reached, that there will be no attempt to forcibly annex Greenland, and instead stated that the United States would work with European countries and Greenland to establish the 'Golden Dome' missile defense plan. Of course, he also made it clear that the U.S. intends to secure mineral rights in Greenland.

With the situation concluding in this manner, experts are now interpreting that President Trump may never have intended to invade Greenland by force in the first place. Ultimately, the U.S. succeeded in persuading European countries to voluntarily cooperate in building security in Greenland, while transferring the mineral rights to the United States. From the U.S. perspective, the two core interests in Greenland were security and minerals, and both have been secured.

In reality, European countries have shown little interest in the security of Greenland or the Arctic region until now. With the war in Ukraine unfolding before their eyes, they had no choice but to concentrate their resources there. However, from the U.S. perspective, Russia's Arctic development is a growing concern. In fact, Russia currently has more than half of its naval forces deployed in the Arctic Ocean. Since the forced annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia has built naval bases and around 180 missile bases throughout the Arctic, citing concerns about U.S. operations in the region. All of these facilities are positioned to face the North American continent.

Yet, except for the Alaska region, the U.S. has not established any significant defensive lines. Even if Canada joins the Golden Dome defense plan in the future, the Arctic Ocean region connected to the Atlantic remains a gap. Greenland is located precisely in this area. In this context, European countries have been paying only lip service to defending the region, effectively leaving Arctic security to the United States. This has led to analysis that President Trump deliberately instilled fear that the U.S. might annex Greenland, thereby prompting European countries to voluntarily dispatch troops to the region.

Security concerns over Arctic Ocean and Atlantic submarine cables... Will Russian expansion be blocked?

AFP Yonhap News

Since most of Greenland is covered with ice, some may question whether there is a real possibility of military conflict with Russia. However, the situation has changed dramatically. In the past, most of Greenland's northern coastline was trapped by glaciers, allowing only submarines or icebreakers to pass, making it difficult for large warships to navigate and reducing the likelihood of large-scale military clashes.

The problem now is that, due to global warming, most of the ice in the region has melted. Today, not only the Russian coast but almost the entire Arctic Ocean is navigable by regular ships for more than 10 months of the year. In the early 2000s, the number of navigable months was less than two; now it has increased more than fivefold.

As a result, submarine cables laid in the Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic below have emerged as a new security issue. These cables are used for a wide variety of purposes, including communications lines connecting the U.S. and Europe, power lines, and military communications lines. In particular, military communications cables do more than just transmit information-they play a critical role in detecting the movements of enemy ships or submarines. Sensors attached to some of these submarine cables can monitor whether warships have passed by.

Recently, there was an incident in the Baltic Sea where a cable was cut, suspected to be the work of Russia. This shocked not only Europe but also the United States. The concern is that such incidents could just as easily occur in Greenland or along the Arctic coastline. Since these coastal areas are no longer trapped by glaciers year-round, there is a real concern that Russia could carry out such operations. If that happens, it could become difficult for the U.S. to detect enemy ships crossing the Atlantic. This security burden is suspected to be the hidden motive behind the Trump administration's Greenland controversy.

So what direction will U.S. policy on Greenland take going forward? The current situation in Greenland is rather complex. Before the Trump administration's involvement, the main issue was the independence of Greenland's autonomous government. Denmark had not opposed this, but with recent developments, hardline opinions advocating for retaining Greenland are gaining traction in Denmark, and public opinion is expected to shift significantly. Denmark and Europe are likely to become more proactive in resource development and defense issues in Greenland.

In this scenario, the U.S. will find it easier to invest in and access Greenland's resource development. Currently, major U.S. big tech companies are showing considerable interest in Greenland. They expect that the development of natural gas and oil will become more active, and they are eager to build large-scale artificial intelligence (AI) data centers in the region. The area is rich in energy resources, so electricity is expected to be inexpensive once development begins, and with a population of only about 50,000, there is plenty of available land for data centers. The proximity to the U.S. and the cold climate, which reduces the need for server cooling, make it an ideal location for data center construction in many respects.

Therefore, U.S. policy is expected to encourage European countries to voluntarily participate in regional defense and infrastructure construction, support energy companies in developing the area, and at the same time facilitate the entry of big tech companies. By promoting development and expanding defense facilities in the region, the U.S. hopes to use it as a new defensive zone to block Russian expansion into the Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic.

Serious rift in the Atlantic alliance... Diplomacy must adapt to the changing international order

Reuters Yonhap News

The reason the Greenland controversy sent shockwaves around the world is that it caused a serious rift in the Atlantic alliance. It was the first time since the U.S. War of Independence against Britain in the 18th century that the U.S. and Europe came so close to a military confrontation, making the shock even greater. Concerns are now being raised that the U.S. is abandoning traditional diplomacy and, like the great powers of the 19th-century imperialist era, will continue to use so-called 'gunboat diplomacy' to pursue its interests by force. If U.S. interests are at stake, it will apply pressure regardless of whether the country is a long-standing ally or not.

However, there are doubts as to whether such an approach will benefit U.S. national interests in the medium to long term. The shock felt by Asian allies was no less than that experienced by European countries in this incident. Trust in the U.S. has already dropped significantly among Middle Eastern countries such as Saudi Arabia and India. Recently, India scrapped a new fighter jet deal it was negotiating with the U.S. and instead signed a contract with France. This reflects a growing awareness that relying too heavily on the U.S. for regional security is risky.

As a result, countries that have been internationally isolated, such as China and Russia, now have more room to maneuver diplomatically. Recently, China announced that despite strong U.S. sanctions, it recorded its highest-ever trade surplus last year. This is because, amid the trade disputes initiated by the U.S., China actually increased trade with other countries.

The U.S. administration that follows the Trump administration is expected to inherit a significant diplomatic burden in this regard. After that, the direction may change somewhat. As the Trump administration is expected to continue pursuing diplomacy that puts military pressure on even its allies to serve its own interests, South Korea's diplomacy must also adapt to these changes in U.S. foreign policy.