How could this unusual situation happen, with two NATO allies in dispute over a large territory that is 80% covered in ice but has significant untapped mineral wealth? And how might aspirations for independence among Greenland’s population of 56.000, under Danish control for 300 years, affect the final outcome? Here we look at four possible scenarios for Greenland’s future
In recent weeks, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has shown renewed interest in taking control of Greenland, a largely autonomous territory of Denmark in the Arctic and the world’s largest island. He initially indicated an intention to buy Greenland in 2019, during his first term as president, but this week he went further, refusing to rule out the possibility of economic or military force taking control of it. Danish and European officials have responded negatively, saying Greenland is not for sale and its territorial integrity must be preserved.
So how could this unusual situation happen, with two NATO allies in dispute over a large territory that is 80% covered in ice but has significant untapped mineral wealth? And how might aspirations for independence among Greenland’s population of 56.000, under Danish control for 300 years, affect the final outcome? Here we look at four possible scenarios for Greenland’s future.
TRUMP LOSES INTEREST, NOTHING HAPPENS
There is some speculation that Trump’s move is simply a sham, a move to push Denmark to increase Greenland’s security in the face of the threat of Russia and China seeking influence in the Region. Last month, Denmark announced a new $1.5bn (£1.2bn) military package for the Arctic. He had prepared before Trump’s comments, but the announcement just hours after them was described by the Danish defense minister as an “irony of fate”. “What was important in what Trump said was that Denmark must fulfill its obligations in the Arctic or it must allow the US to do it,” says Elisabet Svane, chief political correspondent.
Marc Jacobsen, associate professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, believes this is a case of Trump “positioning himself before taking office”, while Greenland is using the occasion to gain more international authority as an important step towards independence.
So even if Trump were to lose further interest in Greenland now, which Professor Jacobsen thinks is the most likely scenario, he has certainly put the issue in the spotlight. But independence for Greenland has been on the agenda for many years, and some say the debate could even go in the opposite direction. “I have noticed in recent days that the prime minister of Greenland is more relaxed in his comments – i.e. yes, we want independence, but in the long term,” says Svane.
GREENLAND VOTE FOR INDEPENDENCE, SEEKS CLOSER TIES WITH US
There is a general consensus in Greenland that independence will eventually happen, and also that if Greenland votes for it, Denmark will accept and ratify it. However, it is also unlikely that Greenland will vote for independence unless its people are given assurances that they can keep the subsidies they currently receive from Denmark to pay for things like healthcare and the welfare system. “Greenland’s prime minister may be up in arms now, but in the event that he actually calls a referendum, he will need some kind of compelling narrative on how to save Greenland’s economy and welfare system,” Ulrik Gad, a researcher senior at the Danish Institute for International Studies, told the BBC.
Another possible step is a loose association – something like the US currently has with the Pacific states of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. Denmark has previously opposed this status for both Greenland and the Faroe Islands, but according to Dr Gad, current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is not categorically against it.
“Danish understanding of the historical experience of Greenland is much better than 20 years ago,” he says, with Denmark accepting colonial responsibility. The latest discussions may persuade [Frederiksen] to say it’s better to keep Denmark in the Arctic, to keep some kind of connection with Greenland, even if it’s looser, he adds. But even if Greenland is able to get rid of Denmark, it has become clear in recent years that it cannot get rid of the US. The Americans never left after taking control of the island in World War II and see it as vital to their security.
An agreement in 1951 affirmed Denmark’s basic sovereignty over the island but, in effect, gave the US everything it wanted. Dr Gad said Greenlandic officials had been in contact with the last two US administrations about Washington’s role.
“They now know that the US will never leave,” he said. There has been speculation that Trump’s economic rhetoric is potentially the biggest threat to Denmark – with the US drastically raising tariffs on Danish, or even EU, goods, forcing Denmark to make concessions of some sort on Greenland . Professor Jacobsen says that Danish governments have prepared for this, and not just because of the Arctic territory. Trump has threatened universal tariffs of 10% on all US imports, which, among other things, could significantly hamper European growth, and some Danish and other European companies are now considering setting up manufacturing bases in the US.
“USA TAKES CONTROL BY FORCE”
Possible options for raising tariffs include invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), Benjamin Cote of international law firm Pillsbury told the MarketWatch website. One of the main Danish industries potentially affected by this is pharmaceuticals. The US gets products such as hearing aids and most of its insulin from Denmark, as well as the diabetes drug Ozempic, made by the Danish company Novo Nordisk. Analysts say that the increase in prices that would result from these measures would not find favor with the American public.
The nuclear option seems remote, but with Trump failing to rule out military action, it should be considered. Basically, it wouldn’t be difficult for the US to take control, since they already have bases and a lot of troops in Greenland.
“The United States is de facto in control now,” says Professor Jacobsen, adding that Trump’s remarks seemed ill-informed and he did not understand their meaning. That said, any use of military force by Washington would create an international incident. “If they invade Greenland, they invade NATO. So, that’s where it stops. Article 5 would have to be put into action. And if a NATO country invades NATO, then there is no NATO,” says Svane. Dr Gad says Trump sounds like Chinese President Xi Jinping talking about Taiwan or Russia’s Vladimir Putin talking about Ukraine. “He is saying that it is legitimate for us to take this piece of land. If we really take it seriously, this is a bad omen for the entire Western alliance,” he says.
