Former U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands discusses President Donald Trump’s focus on Greenland as a national security priority and why the region matters strategically on ‘The Will Cain Show.’

WILL CAIN: Joining me now, former U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands. Carla, thanks for being with us here today. Why, in your estimation is Greenland so important to the United States? CARLA SANDS, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO DENMARK: Well, because it’s just off our northeast coast, and it’s the world’s largest island that could easily fall into adversarial hands. If you think about 60,000 people with a very little economy and a lot of ocean around it, the GIUK Gap, Greenland is the G in the GIUK gap. And we actually occupy Greenland from World War II until after the fall of the Berlin Wall. So the United States built most of the infrastructure. There’s very little in Greenland because Denmark can’t afford or doesn’t have the interest in developing Greenland. CAIN: So, Greenland, as it sits, is essentially a colony of Denmark. Denmark is a member of NATO. The United States basically is NATO. So wouldn’t we right now have the security capability and the capacity to ensure there is no foreign adversarial power in charge of Greenland? What has to change? Just a bigger physical presence for the United States in Greenland? SANDS: I think it’s — I think President Trump is looking at more control. If you think about Denmark, I mean, Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, has done a great job for the Danes, but not so good for NATO or the rest of the world. They put Denmark first, and they don’t really put Greenland first. And Greenland’s not secure. Russia and China have ships, and they have tried, China especially, to use economic predation on Greenland to get control of their resources. I think that President Trump is saying, look, I think you should, Greenland, be part of the U.S. so that we can secure you and so that we have the economic ability to secure loans and develop Greenland. The Greenlanders want great jobs and prosperity, and they’re going independent. And that’s what no one’s talking about. Greenland’s going independent. They won’t have Denmark and NATO backing them up. They want to be independent. CAIN: So, at one time, we had, what was it, something like 10,000 troops on Greenland, 17 different bases. We’re now down to under 200 troops, American troops in Greenland. So, for security, what I hear from you, and perhaps the administration, is, we want control over Greenland. But is that control about something more? Is it about minerals? Is it about shipping lanes in and around Greenland? How much of this control is about the economy? SANDS: Well, I think it’s about the region and making sure that China or Russia don’t have control of Greenland. It’d be very easy to take that island because there’s so few people, 60,000 people. And the part that’s not covered in ice is bigger than California, the part that’s not covered in ice. So it’s a huge, huge land mass. And if we’re going to go and rescue our allies across the Atlantic and an adversary controls it, very hard to transit the Atlantic, very hard to get into the Arctic Sea. And if you think about trade, where China has militarized some of those islands in the South China Sea, imagine if they militarized Greenland. Russia’s already militarized their coast. And they have by far the biggest real estate in the Arctic. And they’ve reopened old Cold War bases. They’ve reopened new bases. Then they have so many more icebreakers than we have. They have more than 40 icebreakers. Many have missiles on them. And we have about two with several in production. That’s not — you know, we’re not playing the same game as Russia and China. CAIN: All right, Carla Sands, thanks for being with us here today. SANDS: Great to be with you.

RealClearPolitics Videos