CSPAN - Washington Journal Rebecca Pincus

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 12, 2025 02:04-02:45 - CSPAN

40:51

Washington Journal Rebecca Pincus

Participants

Main

mimi geerges

cspan 05:19

Appearances

donald j trump

admin 00:50

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
unidentified		Force and Marines testify before a Senate Armed Services subcommittee about joint force readiness.
		And at 3.30 Eastern, the Senate Aging Committee discusses loneliness among seniors and the importance of community support.
		These events also stream live on the free C-SPAN Now video app and online at C-SPAN.org.
		Saturdays, watch American History TV's 10-week series, First 100 Days.
		We explore the early months of presidential administrations with historians and authors and through the C-SPAN archives.
		We learn about accomplishments and setbacks and how events impacted presidential terms and the nation up to present day.
		Saturday, the first 100 days of Jimmy Carter's presidency in 1977.
		After defeating President Gerald Ford in the 1976 election, he promised to move the country forward after the Watergate period.
		President Carter offered proposals on energy, taxes, welfare, and reform of government.
		Jimmy Carter passed away in December 2024 at the age of 100.
		Watch our American History TV series, First 100 Days, Saturday at 7 p.m. Eastern on American History TV on C-SPAN 2.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Welcome back to Washington Journal.
		We're joined now by Rebecca Pincus.
		She's Polar Institute Director at the Wilson Center.
		Rebecca, welcome to the program.
unidentified		Thank you so much.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So President Trump has repeated his intention to make Greenland a U.S. territory in his address to Congress last week.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's just take a look at that moment and then we'll get your reaction.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And I also have a message tonight for the incredible people of Greenland.
		We strongly support your right to determine your own future.
		And if you choose, we welcome you into the United States of America.
		We need Greenland for national security and even international security.
		And we're working with everybody involved to try and get it.
		But we need it really for international world security.
		And I think we're going to get it.
		One way or the other, we're going to get it.
		We will keep you safe.
		We will make you rich and together.
		We will take Greenland to heights like you have never thought possible before.
		It's a very small population, but very, very large piece of land and very, very important for military security.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		He mentioned that it was important to U.S. national security.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Why is that?
unidentified		Greenland has been strategically vital to the United States for 75, 80 years, ever since World War II.
		In World War II, the weather war was fought over Greenland because weather stations could give allies or Axis powers information about fighting conditions in the North Atlantic, which is obviously a strategic waterway between the United States and Europe.
		The United States occupied Greenland during the war.
		And then as technology advanced throughout the Cold War, we built a U.S. military base up in Thule in northwest Greenland.
		And in the era of intercontinental ballistic missiles, we placed increasingly sophisticated radar systems up there to give us advance warning of missile threats coming over the polar region to threaten the United States homeland.
		So throughout successive generations of military technology, Greenland has stayed vital because it's this far northern location that points at Eurasia.
		And any missile threat coming towards the United States from Eurasia is going to be passing over those polar trajectories.
		And we need to be able to see it as early as possible.
		So from a homeland defense, a missile defense perspective, Greenland is really vital.
		The second piece of importance is that it sits at the western end of the sea lanes of communication across the North Atlantic.
		The so-called GI UK gap, Greenland, Iceland, UK gap.
		That's a sea lane where we can try to find and track Russian submarines exiting from their home bases in Murmansk down through the North Atlantic and getting out into the world oceans.
		And it's incredibly vital that we track them there at the narrowest point before they can escape.
		So from an anti-submarine warfare perspective, as well as from that missile defense perspective, Greenland is really, really important.
		And it has been for a very long time.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So why don't we just expand the military base?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Why do we actually have to own all of Greenland?
unidentified		I think there's a conversation to be had about our security interests and the best way to meet them in the current era.
		We're in a new generation of military technology where we're dealing with hypersonic missiles and delivery systems, new space-based threats.
		There's an important satellite station in Greenland.
		And so I think it's part of a broader conversation when we think about the new era of missile defense.
		I do think, you know, there's sort of a number of different approaches to securing U.S. security interests there, but those interests are vital and always have been.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		There's also Greenland's mineral wealth.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Explain what they have and why that would be important to us.
unidentified		Absolutely.
		So Greenland has a tremendous mineral endowment.
		You know, virtually anything you can think of.
		A lot of critical minerals, which we know are very important to modern technology.
		A lot of interest in critical minerals today.
		Rare earth elements, uranium, precious metals.
		There's an active ruby mine in Greenland and a gold mine.
		It's just a really rich mineral endowment.
		It's a huge area.
		You know, the island of Greenland is three times the size of Texas.
		So we're talking about a really, really big island.
		And there's been very little mining activity.
		So it's in many ways very untouched.
		And so that's tremendously important today as there's so much interest in critical minerals and everything else.
		The reason that it's largely been untouched is that mining is very challenging there.
		It's very expensive.
		You're dealing with an Arctic environment.
		There's a giant ice sheet.
		And so there are some real hurdles to mining.
		And I think that's important to bring into the conversation because too often we focus on the minerals and not necessarily on the process of getting them out of the ground.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Speaking of the environment, talk about the impact climate change has had on Greenland.
unidentified		Sure.
		I mean, it's, you know, we're seeing ice melt coming off that ice sheet and that impacts sea level rise and potentially ocean circulation throughout the North Atlantic.
		You know, the Gulf Stream and that Atlantic meridian overturning current runs up the north coast of the east coast of the United States, sorry, and over to Europe.
		It keeps Europe warm.
		There's some concerns about the future of Greenland's ice sheet and the future of that current.
		Those are very, very macro and long-term trends.
		But Greenland is certainly vital to global climate, absolutely.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And if you'd like to join our conversation, if you've got a question for our guest about Greenland, about the geopolitics of the Arctic, you can give us a call.
		The numbers are Democrats 202-748-8000.
		It's 202-748-8001 for Republicans and 202748-8002 for independents.
		Greenland is self-governed territory.
		It's controlled by Denmark.
		Explain what that means and what the role of Denmark is in Greenland's economy and security.
unidentified		Absolutely.
		And that's, I'm happy you asked about that because it's really important.
		Greenland is a former Danish colony.
		And as with any former colony, there's a pretty fraught history there.
		But over the last several decades, Greenland has moved more and more towards greater autonomy and political power, along with the Faroe Islands, which are also part of the Kingdom of Denmark.
		So one of the most significant steps was in 2009 with the Self-Rule Act.
		And the Self-Rule Act gave Greenland a lot of political autonomy, including control over its natural resources and education, healthcare, policing, sort of all of the domestic concerns are now fully controlled by the Greenlandic government.
		Denmark does maintain control of defense and foreign policy, although it conducts those policies in consultation with Greenlanders.
		And there are Greenlandic members of parliament who sit in the Danish parliament.
		There's a lot of structures for interaction, but it is still part of that Kingdom of Denmark.
		And, you know, Greenlanders want independence.
		That's been clearly expressed.
		You can see that.
		But they've been on a trajectory towards more and more political autonomy over the years, more and more control over their land.
		And that process, I think, is something where we see the Danish and Greenlandic governments working together pretty closely along that pathway.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		This is the Guardian.
		Greenland calls for general election for 11 March amid Trump interest.
		That's today.
unidentified		That is today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		What's going on and what do you expect to happen in this election?
unidentified		It's a regular election, so it's not any sort of snap or emergency election.
		But in its arsenal, the Greenlandic parliament is up for election today.
		There are 31 seats.
		Greenlanders are voting, so we should see results hopefully probably tomorrow.
		And it's going to be really interesting to see what happens.
		Right now, the government is led by a coalition of the two majority parties, IA and Simuit, which are both relatively sort of center.
		And IA is the largest.
		They hold 11 seats.
		Simiat holds 10.
		And then there's a few more smaller parties.
		There's about five or six total.
		But it's going to be interesting to see if that distribution of seats changes as a result of all of the attention Greenland has been getting.
		And what I think it's good to look for is going to be if there's a change in sort of the relative distribution of seats among parties that are more or less eager to pursue independence.
		So there's a political consensus around independence in Greenland, but the different parties typically take more nuanced positions around how soon they want to get there.
		And I'm happy to sort of talk more about that if you want to.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		But the question is, what is the general public in Greenland?
		And I know there's only 56,000 people there.
		What do they think about becoming part of the United States?
unidentified		Polls indicate that a majority of Greenlanders do not want to do that right now.
		But also, we know that there's a political consensus around independence.
		So you see pretty significant majorities of Greenlanders who want to pursue independence.
		I think many Greenlanders see the U.S. as an incredibly vital partner.
		Again, we've had a presence there through the base for decades.
		And it's an important relationship.
		And I think there's interest in a closer relationship with the United States, with investment.
		Greenland needs investment to develop its economy and to sort of achieve eventual independence.
		It will need to grow its economic foundation.
		So I think the United States is seen as a potential partner there.
		But what we've seen from polling is that it doesn't appear that there is popular support now for becoming formally part of the United States.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And you mentioned the Arctic, the geopolitics of the Arctic.
		China and Russia have been increasing their presence there.
		Have been doing joint exercises together in the Arctic.
		What's their interest there, and what's the concern for the United States?
unidentified		Sure, absolutely.
		You know, I'll break them apart a little bit.
		Russia is the largest Arctic state.
		It controls about half of the Arctic's coastline, so it's sort of always been incredibly important from a regional perspective.
		China is interested in the Arctic and has been for many years.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Even though they're not an Arctic.
unidentified		They are not.
		Yes, and I definitely want to underscore that.
		China's very far away from the Arctic.
		And about a decade ago, they were talking a lot about being a near-Arctic state, about doing a lot of foreign investment in the Arctic region.
		That wave of attention and pressure has receded to a certain extent.
		So we see less, I think, pressure from Chinese investors, although there certainly have been attempts to invest in Greenland and around the Arctic region and Finland and Canada and Sweden and Alaska.
		But China is, you know, it's a resource-importing state and it's a major shipping state, and the Arctic is full of natural resources and potential emerging shipping lanes.
		So it's not surprising that China is interested in the Arctic region, but we do need to guard against their potential to gain influence there and to undermine the rules-based order up there.
		And the growing alignment between China and Russia is, of course, extremely troubling.
		We have seen joint exercises, joint naval exercises, a Coast Guard agreement.
		Most of those have been focused on the Bering Sea off of Alaska.
		But we do see Chinese research icebreakers conducting science missions, science missions in the Arctic region every summer.
		And sure, they're probably collecting sensitive data as well.
		That's sort of the reality of the world these days, right?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So you put it in quotations because it's probably spy missions, not science.
unidentified		You know, I think we have to assume that these days there's some scientific research and there's probably some intelligence gathering on, you know, what else is up there.
		We can't keep China out of the Arctic.
		They're conducting science missions.
		You know, they get permission to go into states' EEZs to do science.
		The State Department has been granting Chinese research expeditions access for many years now, right?
		This is sort of long-standing practice.
		So has Canada and Russia.
		You know, we see these Chinese expeditions.
		But I think what it behooves us to do is to be smart about recognizing the reality of a global competition in which every part of state activity is competitive.
		We know with China that they use their spending and their companies to compete with us economically.
		They're competing with us scientifically.
		We see espionage.
		So I think the Arctic is part of that.
		It is not immune from these global dynamics.
		As much as in the past, there was a strong narrative that the Arctic was different.
		It was separate.
		What happens in the Arctic stays in the Arctic, and that's just not true anymore, and it hasn't been for several years.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right, let's talk to callers.
		We'll start with Kurt, who's an Altoona, Pennsylvania, Democrat.
		Hi, Kurt.
unidentified		How are you today?
		Good.
		I have just a couple observations.
		I'm a retired history teacher in high school and college.
		And first of all, Article 2 does not permit Trump to just arbitrarily go out and say, I want Greenland.
		It would have to be like Congress would have to go through and qualify that.
		And Denmark is a sovereign nation.
		If they say no, then you just can't bully somebody into doing that.
		And as far, you've got to think about environmental factors also, where Greenland is, okay?
		I mean, it's a lot of fresh water goes into the Atlantic Ocean, and as your guests had said, it helps keep the conveyor, the warm water around the coast, could change the climate.
		And then you have the environmental factors.
		You just don't jump in there and say, like, hey, we're going to take Greenland.
		I mean, I don't see that as ever going to happen.
		They've already have a base.
		They've already talked in the past 20 years about expanding the base there.
		And we don't know what's there.
		And as far as I'm going to go back to one thing, that the Social Security Fund, that's been rated by Reagan and some other presidents.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So that's off our topic.
		But go ahead and his comment about the base there.
		And, you know, President Trump had said that, quote, we'll get essentially Greenland, quote, one way or another.
		What are the possible scenarios as to how the administration would get Greenland?
unidentified		Yeah, and I appreciate the President starting those comments by speaking directly to the people of Greenland and recognizing their right to self-determination.
		And I think that's really the starting point.
		Greenlanders do have the right of self-determination.
		And the pathways here for them to pursue change, whether it's independence or some other form of arrangement, would really start with Greenlanders.
		I mentioned the 2009 Self-Rule Act.
		It lays out a pathway by which Greenland can achieve independence.
		And so that was negotiated between Greenland and Denmark.
		There is a pathway for Greenlanders to gain their independence.
		It begins with a referendum vote.
		And then negotiations would start between Greenland and Denmark.
		And they would have to come to an agreement that would have to be accepted by both parliaments.
		And so, you know, I think the caller is right.
		This is something that would certainly take a very long time.
		And, you know, I think from a practical perspective, for the U.S. to acquire Greenland would be practically very challenging.
		There's a number of sort of hurdles there.
		But I welcome the conversation about what options there may be for the U.S. and Greenland to work together more closely.
		And I think that conversation, a productive conversation about deepening the relationship, recognizing the importance of Greenland to the United States and NATO tying us all together, I think that's really welcome.
		And hopefully, in President Trump's first administration, we saw interest in Greenland too.
		And the net effect was closer U.S.-Greenland ties.
		We reopened a consulate in Nuuk, the capital.
		Several U.S. agencies began partnerships with Greenland.
		They're benefiting both parties.
		So I think there is a potential for this conversation to really yield some promising results.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		During the first term, it was an offer to buy Greenland.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		It seems that that offer is off the table at this point.
unidentified		You know, it's hard to sort of tell what the specific policy options are under consideration.
		I think Greenlanders at this point do not appear interested in becoming part of the United States.
		And I think right now we're in this sort of phase where there's a lot of things being talked about.
		But when you start looking at sort of the realities of different policy options and sort of the question of cost, risk, and relative priority vis-a-vis other U.S. challenges, I think we're going to get to a place where some of the more drastic choices probably slide off the table.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Rebecca Pincus is with us.
		She's a Polar Institute director at the Wilson Center.
		We're talking about U.S. National Security and Greenland.
		If you'd like to give us a call, the lines are open.
		It's Democrats are 202-748-8000.
		Republicans are 202-748-8001.
		And Independents are 202-748-8002.
		And we'll talk to Art.
		Illinois, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
unidentified		I'd like to ask why is there not a close tie between Denmark and Greenland?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is there not a what, Art?
unidentified		Between a very close tie between Greenland and Denmark.
unidentified		The relationship.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And so, what's your question about that?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Is there a close tie?
unidentified		Yes.
		Denmark is part of NATO and is also made to become a member of the United Nations.
		How can we look at Denmark and Greenland separately?
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		Yeah.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, Rebecca.
unidentified		So as I mentioned, Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, along with the Faroe Islands.
		And there is very close ties.
		You know, while Greenland has gained more political autonomy in recent years, there remains really significant legal ties there, constitutional ties, right?
		It's part of the kingdom.
		The Danish government maintains control over defense and foreign policy.
		And also, the Danish government provides an annual block grant to Greenland.
		It's a significant financial assistance that is really vital.
		And so there's strong sort of economic connections there.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		About how much is it per year?
unidentified		It's about half a billion dollars or so.
		It's roughly 40 to 50% of sort of the Greenlandic GDP.
		So it's really pretty significant.
		And that's always been sort of, once you start getting into the reality of the independence conversation, the financial piece becomes a little bit more challenging.
		And I should also note that there's a really significant Greenlandic diaspora in Greenland, in Denmark, excuse me.
		So there are thousands of Greenlanders who live in Denmark, live abroad in Denmark, and there are very strong family ties.
		There's a lot of intermarriage and people traveling back and forth.
		And so I think there are strong ties that bind Denmark and Greenland.
		And that's important to recognize as well in this conversation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
		And here's Alex in Harvard, Massachusetts, Republican.
		Hi, Alex.
unidentified		Hi, Dan.
		My name is Alexis Todd.
		I'm from Harvard, Massachusetts.
		Hope everybody's having a good day today.
		So personally, I don't think we're going to get Greenland just because it'll, I believe it'll compromise national security, in my opinion.
		Our country already looks like a joke.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Here is Jennifer in Oak Park, Illinois, Democrat.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Hi, Jennifer.
unidentified		Hi, Mimi.
		I am so excited.
		Good morning, everybody.
		I'm so excited to talk to you, Mimi.
		This is the first time I've gotten to you, and I'm just pumped.
		But is this Riddle?
		For your guests.
		Jennifer.
		Jennifer, are you Riddle on X?
		Yeah, I am.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
		Okay.
		I see your stuff.
unidentified		I know.
		Sometimes I get a little, you know.
		Okay.
		I get a little crazy on there.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Not to throw you off.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So you go ahead with your comment.
unidentified		Yes.
		So, ma'am, for your guest, of course.
		So I kind of find it ridiculous that we're even talking and discussing this, and you're sitting trying to pretend like somehow this is normal and could happen.
		I mean, he's talking about going to war and taking over another sovereign country that's a democracy and part of NATO.
		So would that not trigger NATO to come and defend Greenland and Denmark against America?
		Wouldn't we be breaking NATO's, like our contract with NATO?
		This whole idea that this could happen, and then you're sitting here on here making it sound like this is okay, that this is normal, like that this should happen.
		I just find just completely insulting.
		I can't imagine people in Greenland and Denmark and all around the world listening to you talk like this is somehow possible.
		Like this isn't the most defending, disgusting, awful thing that this disgusting man has been seeing.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Let's get our response.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead.
unidentified		You know, I think there's been a lot of attention on the fact that President Trump has refused to take military options off the table.
		And I understand that.
		I do think that, you know, it's not surprising that the president would refuse to limit himself.
		And I think, you know, we're seeing a sort of characteristic approach to this issue set.
		I do think that military intervention is exceedingly unlikely.
		And, you know, I think it's part of the conversation right now.
		But again, you know, when you know, when sort of the realities of different policy choices start getting fleshed out, again, I think a lot of the options that are currently being discussed right now are probably going to slide off the table because they would not necessarily be appealing.
		Again, you think about sort of cost, risk, and relative prioritization.
		And those are sort of a typical sort of analytic framework, right?
		So, you know, a military option would be extremely high cost.
		It would be extremely high risk because of the NATO issue.
		And when we think about sort of high-level U.S. priorities, again, I think, you know, I find that very unlikely.
		And so I think it's getting a lot of attention right now, which again is sort of not surprising.
		But I think focusing on what are the sort of really constructive ways that we can build closer U.S.-Greenland ties and what would the different options in that set look like, you know, I think that gets us into a different conversation.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And setting aside the military option, there's also economic coercion.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		I mean, you could put a lot of tariffs on Denmark and kind of pressure them that way.
unidentified		Well, Denmark is part of the European Union.
unidentified		So it's hard to tariff them.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		So you can't do it specifically.
unidentified		So, you know, we're seeing a tariff conversation with the EU right now, and that's obviously creating some tension.
		But the fact that Denmark is part of that block and Greenland is part of Denmark, I think, makes this into a broader conversation.
		And again, we're seeing a lot of talk about tariffs and from the administration.
		But then, you know, again, we sort of see that there's tariffs are being delayed or lifted a little bit.
		So, you know, there's sort of the rhetorical piece of it, and then there's sort of the actual implementation side, and there's often a bit of a gap there.
		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And here is Keith in St. Petersburg, Florida, Independent Line.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Good morning.
unidentified		Good morning.
		Great to have a great conversation about Greenland.
		I think from my standpoint, I think from a lot of people's standpoint, Trump gets a bad rap about issues like this.
		The way I think people like Rebecca who are in the know might say is that it's associated with Panama.
		Panama was a, let's say, a small independent country that the U.S. feels is being managed, so to speak, by an adversary, China, in terms of the Panama Canal.
		And he's looking at Greenland sitting out there with very few people in a very vulnerable position in a strategic place.
		And he's thinking, yeah, I think we need to establish our influence and interest in protecting Greenland from adversaries that are also predators, predatory adversaries like China and Russia.
		It's a dangerous world out there.
		And people in this country who start worrying about talking about Marines invading Greenland in order to rag on Trump, I think are doing a disservice to the conversation.
		And I'd like to get Reca's assessment of all that.
		Thank you.
		You know, I do think that it's so much of the time this conversation is at a really high level and it can be sort of hard to sort out some of the kind of key elements from the broader conversation.
		So I think talking about the risks to Greenland are really important because that would be at the root of any, you know, sort of analysis of U.S. policy options.
		Yes, Greenland is a very, very large island.
		It's populated by about 57,000 people.
		Most of the island is relatively uninhabited.
		It is mostly covered by an ice sheet.
		And there is a very important U.S. base, Batufik space base in the northwest.
		So the Thule Air Base was renamed Batufik a couple of years ago.
		That base is very important for our missile defense.
		And, you know, the risks to Greenland I would classify as primarily on the sort of economic and influential side.
		I don't worry about necessarily an invasion of Greenland.
		While it is relatively lightly defended, the primary sort of target there would be that base.
		So I don't think we need to worry about sort of a seizure of Greenland by Russia or China.
		I think the primary concern would be that kind of creeping economic influence that undermines the political independence of the country and puts the U.S. base and U.S. interests at risk.
		And if that's the risk we're talking about, then the set of policy solutions would be tailored to that risk, right?
		And again, we would be focused primarily on blocking potential Chinese influence and making sure that Greenland stays part of the NATO alliance.
		So I think it's really important to kind of get the conversation into specifics because then I think we can have a much more useful conversation about what U.S. options would be, what the various costs and risks of those choices would be.
		And for a long time, we have relied on not only the NATO alliance, but also the bilateral defense agreement that we've had with Denmark and by extension Greenland that went in in 1951.
		So we've had a bilateral defense agreement that was updated in 2004 to give Greenland a greater say.
		And we have the NATO architecture.
		And those two pieces are really important.
		In our evolving security environment, I think there's a conversation to be had about whether more is needed to make sure that Chinese influence doesn't grow in Greenland.
		I think, again, that's a valuable conversation.
		Thinking about Greenland's trajectory towards independence and its minerals and its growth trajectory, how can the U.S. support that in ways that don't, you know, in ways that ensure that our competitors don't get an edge.
		Great conversation to have.
		Absolutely welcome that.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		A few Greenland facts to share with you.
		Put them on the screen.
		It's the world's largest island located in the Arctic.
		By the way, it's about three times the size of Texas.
		It's self-governing territory of Denmark.
		The population is 56,000, mostly indigenous Inuit people.
		80% of its territory is covered by ice.
		The economy is mainly based on fishing.
		And it receives large subsidies from the Danish government.
		It accounts for about a fifth of its income or its GDP.
		And here is Lancy in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, Democrat.
unidentified		Yes, the thing that I wanted to testify is why is it, you know, like, okay, President Trump is so bold, you know, like when he talks about you, the military or whatsoever when it comes to Lancy, did we lose you?
unidentified		No.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
unidentified		I'm here.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		Keep going.
		Jeff in Port Angeles, Washington, Independent Line.
		Good morning.
unidentified		Yeah, good morning.
		As far as Greenland's defense strategic position, in the first place, there are seafloor sensors that track every single submarine on this planet.
		As far as it being some sort of early warning against ICBMs, well, that's just, again, that's just not true.
		Satellites are positioned geosynchronous in a low Earth orbit.
		And, you know, so thinking that Greenland is some kind of early warning system for strategic missile defense is just crazy.
		As far as the economic aspect of it, I can't really speak to that.
		But in terms of a defense strategic, that's just crazy talk.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And Jeff, what's your background in national security or in space?
unidentified		Well, I've been a military kid my whole life, and I've had a lifelong interest in following military, but I have no specific position in strategic defense or anything that I've paid very close attention for virtually my entire life.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		We'll get Rebecca Pincus to respond.
unidentified		You know, I would say the U.S. Department of Defense would beg to get differ.
		But, you know, I think it's, again, that conversation is something where, you know, I think we've seen a lot of U.S. investment over the years and a lot of U.S. articulation of the importance of Greenland for those various purposes.
		We know that the Russians remain extremely capable in the undersea domain.
		We've seen a remarkable challenge for them.
		And while a lot of their conventional forces have been eroded in Ukraine, at the high end, their capabilities remain very much able to hold U.S. assets at risk.
		Their undersea domain is one of their particular areas of capability.
		And the emergence of some of these new missiles and missile delivery systems, I think, again, are something that the DOD is saying very loudly these days we have not yet solved.
		The conversation around missile defense and NORAD modernization, I think, again, is sort of further evidence that at least the Pentagon thinks that we still have a challenge.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And the possibility of hypersonic weapons coming out of Russia or China.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		And China has tested a hypersonic, and it's believed that Russia has as well.
unidentified		Yep, absolutely.
		Really challenging novel threat, space-based weapons.
		You know, I think we're in sort of a technological revolution when it comes to missiles and missile delivery systems, and that's of absolutely vital concern to the United States.
		Absolutely.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Renee in Marietta, Georgia, sent a text and says, what a waste of time.
		This is a distraction to bring our attention away from all the harm this administration is doing.
		When will men stop exploiting other people's land?
		Here is Robert in Washington, D.C., Independent Line.
		Hi, Robert.
unidentified		Greetings, blessings.
		Been it that you, and I'm about to use my 30 days, but that you're talking to me right now, that I am the very first Afro-American student in the United States, along with another.
		that we have crossed the Arctic Circle and have tested base at none other than Tooley Air Force Base in Greenland.
		Now, a lot of this goes by way of that there's an Air Force base there.
		And I was there in 1981.
		Now, I was in a special high school science project here in D.C.
		And I was in Marine Science and Marine Biology.
		It was known as Randall Senior High School.
		And so it was a wonderful kind project, you know, that was ever done.
		And I also was an aerospace where we had the Air Force and the Civil Air Patrol on one side of the school, and on the other side was the Navy and the Coast Guard.
		And so while here at this special project, and so I was chosen during that year to be in the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary Program.
		And so as it were, that we were chosen to be on a Coast Guard, United States Coast Guard cutter, the West Wind.
		And so we were the first students at that time to have reached the and crossed the Arctic Circle and have stepped foot in Greenland.
		And so I'm also as well as a, what is called in the military, it's called a blue-nosed polar bear.
		And so when you cross the Arctic Circle, and if you want to go through the, and so at that time, so we did science research and so most other research was I've done here in D.C. amongst the Potomac River and on pollution and things like that.
		And so we also found out later on that there was a lot of high contamination up in the Arctic.
		And so I worked alongside with the St. John's Newfoundland Coast Cold Water Research.
		And so we did research on like icebergs.
		And so we took like portions.
		And so we were the first to have seen the first coastal shelf that broke off in 1981.
		And none other than the United States Coast Guard cutter, the West Wind.
		All right, Robert.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Well, we appreciate you sharing those memories with us.
		This is John Hampton, Virginia, Democrat.
		You're the last called, John.
		Go ahead.
unidentified		Thank you.
		I agree with the young lady from Illinois and the lady from Marietta, Georgia.
		It is a distraction.
		The reason that Trump honest Greenland is because of Minerists, as the young lady said earlier.
		Also, that's why they want to take over Ukraine minerals.
		So, you know, you have the next thing they'll say is fentanyl coming from Greenland.
		And you have all these mega people agreeing that fentanyl is coming from Greenland.
		However, the United States, or Trump rather, what is taking over Greenland going to do for price of eggs?
		What is it going to do for price of child care?
		What is it going to do for the price of housing?
		So these people are just ate up.
		Thank you, Mimi.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		All right.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Last comment, Rebecca?
unidentified		I just wanted to say thank you to Robert for sharing those reflections.
		You know, the West Wind is a Coast Guard, was a Coast Guard icebreaker that was probably on its last gasp in 1981.
		It was built in World War II and run by the Navy until the 60s and then transferred over to the Coast Guard.
		And I think, you know, it's an illustration several decades ago, you know, in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the U.S. had a big icebreaker fleet.
		We had a strong presence in the Arctic because of that geopolitical importance of the region.
		And these days, part of the reason we're concerned about China and Russia is that our position there has really been eroded.
		The Coast Guard has two icebreakers, both of which are old and at the end of their service lives.
		So there's a lot of interest in the Arctic and there's a lot of recognition, I think, that the U.S. position, again, has eroded from where it was during the Cold War.
		And we need to make some investments to bring it back there.
		So again, you know, this interest in the Arctic and in Greenland, I think, is valuable because it points us in the direction of really important steps that are badly needed today.
mimi geerges ▲ ● ▼		Rebecca Pincus, Polar Institute Director at the Wilson Center.
		Her work is at wilsoncenter.org.
		Rebecca, thanks so much for joining us.
unidentified		Thanks so much, Mimi.
		C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum involving you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country.
		Coming up Wednesday morning, a look at the latest efforts by Congress to extend government funding past Friday's deadline with the Hills Al Weaver.

▲