Office of U.S. Senator Deb Fischer
At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing this week, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) questioned expert witnesses on the strategic importance of Greenland and the need to maintain a strong American presence in the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) Gap.
During the hearing, Senator Fischer questioned Dr. Rebecca Pincus, Director of the Wilson Center Polar Institute, and Mr. Alexander Gray, a senior fellow in National Security Affairs at the American Foreign Policy Council, on the importance of Pituffik Space Base and the U.S. radar systems based in Greenland, as well as the significance of the GIUK Gap in light of increased Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. Senator Fischer highlighted how critical it is that the Department of Defense maintain its access to spectrum airwaves so it can detect and track incoming threats to our homeland.
Click the image above to watch a video of Sen. Fischer’s questioning
Click here to download audio
Click here to download video
Senator Fischer questions experts:
Senator Fischer: Dr. Pincus, there’s been much discussion of late on Greenland, but I think what’s underappreciated is something that you were trying to focus on, and that’s the importance of Greenland to a whole host of U.S. strategic interests that are there. And, obviously, yes, we need to develop a good working relationship, a good partnership, with Greenland. You mentioned the Space Base that’s in Greenland. It’s a critical forward operating location. It is the Department’s northernmost installation. It hosts radar systems that are essential to our missile defense.
You know, the comment was made that there could be flight paths of ICBMs over Greenland. Well, that may or may not happen. But what is key there is that no matter where in the Arctic ICBMs are flying, what we have to have is radars to be on Greenland so that not only can they track, but they can also detect any incoming threats.
I’d also like to consider the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) Gap, and Mr. Gray, maybe you’d want to add some into this discussion as well. As we look at the increased Russian submarine activity there in recent years, and you couple that with the growing Chinese and Russian presence in the Arctic, I think it’s hard to understate that Gap’s importance. So, both of you, do you assess that increased U.S. presence in the GIUK Gap would be beneficial?
Dr. Pincus: Thank you very much, Senator, for that terrific question. You know, I think it’s very helpful to talk in terms of specifics. And in Greenland, we have long had radar installations to give us early warning of incoming ICBMs coming from Eurasia. And in the current era of hypersonics, new missiles, new missile delivery systems, it’s very important that those radars remain in place and that we recapitalize and modernize them to give us as much advance notice as possible. So, there’s a big radar system at the Pituffik Base. There’s a big airfield, there’s a deep-water port on the east coast of Greenland, that is the westernmost point of the GIUK gap. So, it is a key point for monitoring Russian naval activity and, you know, I think we are looking at a set of challenges in the GIUK gap related to Russian activity, undersea activity. That is a real problem set for us.
The gap between Greenland, Iceland, the U.K., also I would add Norway, provides us some really important points from which to support monitoring and activity. It would be best to talk to the Department of Defense in a classified setting about what specific capabilities and access they may need. But I will say that the 1951 Defense Agreement gives us very wide access to Greenland. We have never had a problem asking for access and permissions and not getting it. And both Greenland and Denmark have made it clear that they stand ready to have that conversation again. I think the Danish defense investments that have been announced include domain awareness capabilities and presence that will help us.
There’s certainly more that can be done, but I think being very specific about ‘what the problem is’ is helpful in terms of thinking about our appropriate response, and also recognizing that in an event of a contingency, fixed installations—whether it’s a radar asset or an airfield—they would be taken out with long range missile strikes. So, I would say that Russia doesn’t have the capability to seize and hold Greenland, and nor would there be a strong military argument for it to do so, given that its most likely response in the event of a contingency would be to strike those assets and then keep moving on.
Senator Fischer: Which would also make it extremely important that DOD maintains that spectrum is used to be able to identify what’s coming in, not just for the homeland but also for Greenland.
Dr. Pincus: Absolutely, and I think having a conversation about air defense and missile defense options we have. We do not have interceptors in Greenland. We do not have interceptors in Canada. We have them in Alaska. So, I think there is a conversation to be had about that specific capability. Thank you.
Senator Fischer: Mr. Gray, before I get called out, please.
Mr. Gray: Thank you, Senator. So many of our concerns, strategically, about Greenland, going back to the ‘40s, have been about the GIUK gap, and it’s been a concern across multiple great power competitors. It is a concern today. To me, the question is less—Dr. Pincus has made the comment about militarily, it would probably not be taken out. I’m more concerned about a future political arrangement in Greenland that could be influenced or controlled adversely by an adversary power in a way that would prevent us from being able to exercise the type of control or the type of domain awareness over the gap that we have had in recent years.
That’s why I think these proposals that I’ve mentioned, others have put forward for what is the long-term political arrangement in connection with Greenland—it’s so important because we have to have the ability to maintain some sort of control and some sort of awareness over that gap.
Senator Fischer: Thank you.