Donald Trump’s plans for acquiring Greenland have stirred debate. Why is he talking about this now? What does it mean for Denmark and European security? While Greenland’s prime minister says the territory is not for sale, if and how Trump goes ahead with his plans could have serious repercussions on European security.
Greenland is the world’s largest island located in the resource-rich Arctic region. It is an autonomous territory of Denmark, an active member of the EU as well as NATO.
The island is home to critical raw materials including rare earth minerals, graphite, lithium, uranium, and iron. These resources, however, remain underdeveloped owing to the fact that 80% of its territory is covered by ice and the progress in infrastructure development has been slow.
Located between the US and Europe, Greenland occupies a unique geopolitical position. With the North-West Passage shipping lane running along its coast, the island is a part of a strategic maritime region called the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom gap.
Acquiring Greenland would provide the US not only exclusive access to resources, but also a base closer to the Arctic, which can be leveraged for defence and ballistic missile warning systems. This makes it all the more critical for the US in the context of Russian and Chinese aspirations for a permanent presence in the region, which could be a future point of contention.
New Great Game?
As the ice cover melts in the Arctic faster than the rest of the planet, a renewed “Great Game” is brewing among the world’s superpowers as they seek to exploit the resources as well as new commercial shipping and military sea routes through ice-free seas.
Historically, US Presidents Andrew Johnson and Harry Truman have also attempted to take over or purchase Greenland citing strategic concerns in 1867 and 1946 respectively. However, it is Trump with his unpredictable policy-making, who has gone one step ahead to introduce a bill in the US House of Representatives called “Make Greenland Great Again Act”, to authorize talks for the purchase of the island as soon as he enters office.
Trump claims that taking control of Greenland is an “absolute necessity” for US national security and does not rule out the possibility of escalating military aggression or economic conflict against Denmark to make it happen.
Trump supporters in the US believe that this could be one of the biggest real estate plays ever, overpowering the US purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867. Is this going to be yet another feather in Trump’s metaphorical cap, rather crown, of transactional diplomacy?
Although Greenland is a self-governing territory with the right to secede, Greenland’s prime minister has clarified “that Greenland is not for sale” and the Danish prime minister has reaffirmed that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders”.
In 2019, Denmark had firmly rejected a similar offer made in Trump’s first term, with Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen calling it “absurd”. This was after Trump announced on social media that according to polls, 68% of Greenlanders supported independence from Denmark. Extrapolating these trends to his upcoming second term, Trump has been threatening the country with tariffs if they refuse to give up Greenland.
US Vs Europe
Trump’s threats of using military force have evoked uneasiness in Europe. Key EU member states France and Germany, have warned that the EU will not tolerate threats against its sovereign borders, citing that the inviolability of borders is fundamental international law. If force is used to change the borders, US relations with its European allies would fundamentally change.
In addition, any future cases of US encroachment into Europe, even through economic and political pressures to cede control, would not easily be ruled out, strategically exposing Europe to conflicts through the Atlantic. It is also important to note that for the US, using military force against Denmark would mean attacking a weaker NATO ally to seize territory, terminally and perennially weakening the alliance.
The major problem with Trump’s proposition is his perceived approach that the Europeans can be walked all over. He seems to believe that the level of dependency that the Europeans have on the US is so high that he can simply demand any potentially strategic territory he desires.
He is unlikely to stop, lest European leaders stand up to this geopolitical bullying. In this context, Europe needs to step up their security game in the Arctic to showcase that they can defend Greenland and the region by themselves. This could be done through increasing investment in Arctic defence, and closely working with Greenland to bolster maritime defence capabilities and ensuring economic security in the region.
Transatlantic cooperation dates back to the second World War, in the aftermath of which a liberal world order was established. The American and European allies have since established a relationship of trust and cooperation, which would see an untimely demise at the hands of Trump in exchange for compromised security in the region.
The EU and the US have the world’s largest bilateral trade and investment relationship, accounting for 42% of the global GDP, and supporting over 16 million jobs. Not only would Europe lose its biggest ally in terms of military, trade and investment, and security cooperation, but the long-standing transatlantic partnership, which is all the more critical in enhancing security and growth in a contested and geopolitically volatile global landscape, would have to bid goodbye to its glorious past. The question remains: Does Trump see this as a trade-off worth making?
Shreya Sinha is Research Analyst (Europe) with the Vivekananda International Foundation
