Geopolitics 19 January
Greenland – a completely unnecessary argument with significant consequences for the world.
Last week President Donald Trump announced that the US “needed Greenland” as part of its recently-unveiled national security strategy. The announcement was received with surprise in many diplomatic offices worldwide. Greenland is a colony of Denmark, a staunch NATO ally of the US and a 75-year old treaty between Denmark and the US permitted the US to operate bases and station troops on Greenland as part of mutual defence arrangements within NATO. While there is currently just one US base in Greenland, the Pituffik Space Base, there is the potential for many more if they are deemed important and no doubt Denmark as the colonial power would be delighted to have them. Initially there seemed to be nothing too unusual about the statement, one of several that President Trump made to the media. It was thought to be a rehash of previous statements or a generic comment and not too much attention was paid to it. Nevertheless, a high-level working group was established between the US, Denmark and Greenland to explore options.
In the next statement that emerged from the White House, Trump was threatening to act and encourage enforcement of his claim on Greenland through one of his favourite options – imposing tariffs on countries to encourage them to fall into line with his plans. This was a sharp escalation of the rhetoric surrounding Greenland and has caused widespread concern within and around NATO where both the US and Denmark are members. Those recent discussions failed to rule out the use of military force. Most observers have noted the difficult position this would create for the NATO alliance if one member were to seize the territory of another member – there could be no mutual defence treaty if the members of NATO – or some of them at least – were potentially at war with each other. What had started as a seemingly innocuous comment about Greenlandic security suddenly had the potential to create an existential threat for the NATO alliance.
Within NATO a number of countries – including the UK, France and Germany – agreed to send a small number of additional troops to Greenland – 19 by my estimate, no additional dog-sleds though – to assess what needed to be done to better defend it – one of President Trump’s complaints is that Russia and China are showing interest in Greenland and the Arctic but that Denmark has no concrete plan to defend the island. At the time of writing, EU members are discussing a number of proposals, including a series of retaliatory tariffs amounting to €93 bn as well as restricting market access for the US to European markets to dissuade the US from imposing its own tariffs on its European allies in response to Trump’s claims on Greenland. With the World Economic Forum taking place this week, and President Trump in attendance at Davos, it is clear that Europe wants to be prepared for any discussions that might take place. If the long-running saga of using frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine’s defence against Russia is anything to go by, we should not expect a swift – and perhaps not even agreed – response for some time. We can already see signs of European nervousness about stirring up President Trump – understandable but I’m not sure that will carry too much weight with the US President. More effective concerns from within the US political and economic establishment may have more sway with the President.
One of the more recent developments is that Denmark has sent additional troops to Greenland to bolster its defence. The initial small group sent to assess Greenland’s future defence needs actually created a problem when Trump was apparently briefed by his advisors that Denmark was sending these troops to defend Greenland (clearly, mistakes like this can happen when trust evaporates as it seems to be doing over Greenland. When it was explained to him that he had been briefed incorrectly, reports suggest he then complained that he hadn’t received the Nobel Peace Prize when he should have done. If true, and there are many stories doing the rounds, grand strategy is out of the window and personal complaints are replacing it in global politics.
Recent developments include Trump’s statement that there is no going back on the Greenland issue now that it has been raised. He also added to his criticism of Greenland, further criticism of the UK for transferring the Chagos Islands (which hosts the strategically important Diego Garcia airbase) to Mauritius and Trump’s team warned Europe not to escalate the situation. Less than two weeks ago, comments like this would have been unthinkable – now they are routine.
I see a number of respected journals backing a tougher stance by Europe against these ideas from the US, while others suggest that this really is bluster on the part of the President and should not be taken too seriously. In my view even if Trump does back away from his clearly stated desire to acquire Greenland, even the fact that it has been raised, and a military component mentioned, will have opened this Pandora’s Box in a way that benefits nobody in Greenland or in the North Atlantic alliance (which we should remember is the world’s most successful military alliance as we are often reminded). That description may well come back to haunt us in the coming weeks.
The wider world is also likely to be impacted by both the outcome of the current situation and the process through which any solution is reached. If these are not supportive of the existing institutions and processes then Russia’s eyeing of Ukraine and China’s designs on Taiwan may move a step closer to being realised – much to the disquiet of Europe. The stakes are quite remarkably high for a country with just 57,000 inhabitants and an – until recently anyway – out-of-the-way location.
