The purchase of a territory by a sovereign nation may seem strange to us today. However, it is not an absurd idea, and many countries in the past have been involved in the purchase of territories from other nations. In 1958, Pakistan bought the area of Gwadar from Muscat and Oman for the sum of $3 million. Interestingly, Gwadar became one of Pakistan’s most important strategic assets. And while Pakistan’s purchase is first of its kind in Asia, this type of transaction is neither new for Europe nor the United States. In fact, the vast territory of the United States primarily comprises of purchased territories. The largest American state, Alaska, was purchased from Russia in 1867 for the sum of $7.2 million. Alaska has an area of 1,717,856 sq km. Therefore, the United States paid $4.19 per square kilometre of Alaska. The purchase was widely criticised by the US Congress and termed the purchase as ‘Seward’s Folly’ because American Secretary of State William H Seward’s push to purchase this unexplored northern territory was thought to be a bad bet. Without Alaska, the United States would have a smaller area than Brazil. Today, Alaska is among the oil-rich states of the United States, which at the time of purchase was termed as a waste of American taxpayers' money. Apart from Alaska, America has acquired Lousiana and Florida, among other territories, in a similar fashion. The purchased land constitutes more than half the area of the United States.

Generally, territories that are far away from the mainland of a country are sold. Alaska was sold because the Russians found it difficult to defend as it was far away from the mainland. Secondly, due to the limited technology available, gold and other mineral resources of Alaska had not been discovered at that point in time. Distance makes administration unfeasible and therefore selling the territory not only generates revenue for the country that owns the land; it also saves administrative expenses. However, every sale is not due to administrative difficulties; sometimes sales are due to strategic importance, where buyers are very persuasive. Such purchases are often of strategic importance to the buyers. In case of sale of Gwadar, it was recognised that the place is well suited for Pakistan to develop a deepwater port. Therefore, on the request of Pakistan, the territory was sold by the Sultanate of Muscat and Oman.

In light of the United States’ long history of buying territories, President Trump's attempt to purchase Greenland is not weird. The Virgin Islands and the Philippines are examples of overseas acquisition by the United States. The Philippines was bought from Spain, and interestingly, Virgin Islands was bought from Denmark, for $25 million. Greenland is situated at a very strategic location, and with the thawing of the Arctic, Greenland has become more important. The strategic value of Greenland was recognised long before World War II, and the United States has made many proposals to buy Greenland before Trump’s recent offer. Seward, who negotiated the purchase of Alaska, also considered the annexation of Iceland and Greenland. In 1910, the United States made an offer to buy Greenland, where the United States offer to trade Mindanao (the second largest island in the Philippines) for Greenland. A similar offer was made in 1946 as well. The importance of Greenland can be gauged by the fact that China has been increasing its interest in Greenland, and even attempted by China to buy a former US military base on the island. China has declared itself as a ‘near-Arctic state’, and Greenland is quite important for China’s ambitious plan to create a ‘Polar Silk Road’.

What is absurd about President Trump’s offer?

Danish Prime Minister has said that discourse around the purchase of Greenland is ‘an absurd discussion’. There is nothing absurd about the conversation regarding the purchase of Greenland. The absurd part is that it comes from President Trump, who is in a confrontational mode with traditional allies of the United States. The absurdity is in the way discussions are taking place. Discussions on sensitive subjects like these are done discreetly and through proper diplomatic channels. But Trump, having a disdain for international norms and conventions, decided to publicise the matter on Twitter, which is presumably the US president’s favourite forum to discuss matters of national interest. The war of words in this episode was absurd. And the subsequent attack, in which President Trump labelled the Danish Prime Minister’s remark as ‘nasty’, is the most absurd thing in this controversy.

***

What do you think?

Dear reader, we’d like to hear from you. We regularly publish letters to the editor on contemporary issues or direct responses to something the Post has recently published. Please send your letters to [email protected] with "Letter to the Editor" in the subject line. Please include your name, location, and a contact address so one of our editors can reach out to you.