Greenland resoundingly shot down any notion of becoming a US territory. The largely self-governing territory of the Kingdom of Denmark responded that it “cannot under any circumstances” entertain President Donald Trump’s eagerness to acquire the strategically located, resource-rich territory. Unfortunately, this declaration comes at a time of heightened security threats within the Arctic region. The emphasis is especially on imagined dangers posed by China and Russia.
Whether or not you agree with him, this past week, Donald Trump has dominated the headlines. He noted that the United States must assert sovereignty over Greenland to improve Arctic security. He went so far as to announce that the US would buy Greenland “one way or the other.” If sincere, this statement marks the beginning of a new US foreign policy toward the Arctic. The president’s comments have set off fire bells in Greenland and Denmark. At least Denmark has been quick to point out, time and again, that Greenland is not for sale.
In Denmark for example, the government is responding to Trump’s comments by increasing their investments in defense. They want to counter their growing military assertiveness in the area. This move aligns with NATO’s ongoing efforts to enhance security in the Arctic, as highlighted by NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte. He noted that conversations are already occurring. Perhaps the greatest challenge before this alliance is figuring out how to rally collectively against the security threats that escalating Russian and Chinese activities now demand.
“All allies agree on the importance of the Arctic and Arctic security, because we know that with sea lanes opening up there is a risk that the Russians and the Chinese will be more active.” – Mark Rutte
Greenland’s political landscape has been influenced by its historical connections to Denmark. Greenland achieved home rule in 1979, which has since enabled it to operate its own affairs with a high level of autonomy. Yet, despite this independence, it still enjoys the protections afforded by the European Union and NATO thanks to Denmark’s membership. The truth is that Greenland left the European Community in 1985, making construction of its special position even more complete.
Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt will sit down with her Danish counterpart, Lars Løkke Rasmussen in Washington. She will join US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to reflect on recent developments. This convening goes straight to the heart of the escalating pressures surrounding US interest in Greenland. We’ll talk about what diplomatic solutions might be possible to address these problems.
Former German Vice-Chancellor Robert Habeck has suggested that offering EU membership to Greenland may be a viable strategy to counteract US ambitions for control over the territory. He called on European countries to offer membership to Greenland. In addition, he urged for the inclusion of the Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Norway into this effort.
“This should be the moment to explicitly offer EU membership to Greenland, and by extension to the Faroe Islands, Iceland and Norway.” – Robert Habeck
Denmark’s positioning is illustrative of a larger worry about international responses to evolving Arctic security dynamics. Andrius Kubilius, perhaps the most important figure in Lithuanian politics, made clear why Denmark’s response mattered. He thinks it will play a big role in determining how NATO responds to future acts of military aggression against its member states.
“It will depend on very much on Denmark, how they will react, what will be their position.” – Andrius Kubilius
Greenland’s strategic importance shines through in sharp relief thanks to a lesser-known treaty signed in 1951. This agreement would allow the US to significantly expand its military footprint in the territory. This treaty facilitates America’s ability to monitor Arctic activities, given that global warming is opening new shipping routes and making previously inaccessible areas more navigable.
Tensions are escalating and geopolitics are rapidly changing in the Arctic. That’s why it is so important for advocates, policymakers, and all other stakeholders to engage in these conversations carefully. The global community too is placing a deeper emphasis on Arctic affairs, understanding the Arctic’s vital significance to broader global interests.
“The Arctic concerns the overall interests of the international community.” – Mao Ning