What does Trump want with Greenland?
US President-elect Donald Trump has again talked about acquiring Greenland and has not ruled out the use of military force to take control of the country. His oldest son paid a one-day 'private visit' to the Arctic island this week. Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has rejected the idea of a takeover, affirming that Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders, but she wants to take up the issue with Trump. Commentators discuss the ramifications.
Geostrategic thinking
For the right-wing populist Weltwoche, the idea has its merits:
“Trump's Greenland offensive is not just the whimsical act of a megalomaniac but must be understood in its geostrategic context. ... The race for the Arctic is about natural resources. The ice on Greenland is melting. Oil, gas, minerals and huge uranium reservoirs are becoming accessible. It's also about shipping and trade routes. And it's about defence, too. Greenland shields the US from Russia. Washington maintains an air force base with the Thule J Upgraded Early Warning Radar in the west of the island ... With his Greenland ambitions, Trump is shaking up his allies. And he's making clear to his opponents Putin and Xi: we won't just sit back and leave the field to you.”
A global nature reserve
There should be no national territories in the Arctic, political scientist Sergei Medvedev counters on his Facebook page:
“I love the Arctic and Greenland, and I would be extremely disappointed to see the island become the 51st US state – which would mean the arrival of large corporations and the mining of natural resources, including on the continental shelf (where there could be huge deposits). I would rather see the Arctic as a nature reserve for all humanity, like the Antarctic, with a ban on all military and economic activities except the traditional aboriginal hunting and fishing, and without any national sovereignty. ... But what do my fantasies matter when the fantasists are now sitting in the White House?”
The same rhetoric as Putin
Dagens Nyheter sees clear parallels between Trump's tactics and those of the Moscow leadership:
“This rhetoric comes straight from the Kremlin. Trump is now talking about Greenland in the same way Putin used to talk about Ukraine: Russia was forced to take over Ukraine to protect itself against the West and Nato, Putin said. And now Trump is saying that the US may have to take over Greenland to protect the West and Nato. It will hardly surprise anyone that both share the conviction that might is right when it comes to controlling their 'spheres of influence'. Nevertheless, this is a remarkable legitimisation of modern Russian imperialism.”
Revival of imperialism
The world is at risk of reverting to the ways of the past, Die Presse warns:
“Questioning territorial borders and simply brushing aside or wiping away the legitimacy of states to suit your own interests constitutes an attack on the world order and a relapse into 19th-century imperialism. It would set a precedent that could give other states like China bad ideas. And precisely the US has so far seen itself as the guardian of this order.”
Independence as the third way
Expressen believes it is possible for Greenland to break away from Denmark but not be swallowed up by the US:
“In his New Year's address, Greenland's Prime Minister Múte Egede said it was time for Greenland to take the next step and 'cast off the shackles of colonialism'. A vote on independence could take place as early as April. A majority of Greenlanders are in favour. The question is whether a sovereign Nuuk would seek closer cooperation with a major power that has threatened to buy the country. Trump's greed may cost him dearly.”
Don't let him exploit this dispute
Trump must not emerge as the winner in the conflict over Greenland's autonomy, warns Politiken:
“If the Greenlanders want to secede, it must happen after they have made an informed choice about the pros and cons of belonging to the Danish Realm and according to the rules that Greenland and Denmark have mutually committed to. Trump is trying to destroy the Greenland-Danish relationship with his 'Greenland delegation'. So instead of getting angry with each other, Denmark and Greenland should take a clear and united stand against Trump's inappropriate intervention. If Donald Trump succeeds in driving a wedge between Denmark and Greenland, there will be two losers and one winner.”
Failure to assume full responsibility
Berlingske notes that it is not only Trump's fault that it has come to this:
“Denmark has failed as a major Arctic power. Because that's what you are when you have foreign and defence policy control and responsibility for Greenland's strategically crucial 2.1 million square kilometres. For too long, Denmark has failed to grasp what this responsibility entails. We have underestimated Greenland's security weight - and this is exactly what Trump is now using as an argument for the US to take control. Denmark has so far failed to invest in adequate security. We were a major power, but we acted like a minor state.”
Not even Nato membership will deter him
Trump's words should not be dismissed as exaggerations, warns La Stampa:
“Exuding supreme confidence, speaking off the cuff, he said many things that must be taken seriously even though they go against common sense and the international normality. They must be taken seriously because Trump has the conviction, the will and the means to implement them. There are few domestic institutional constraints, he has no personal inhibitions and needs to act fast. ... Trump has explicitly not ruled out either economic coercion or military intervention. ... Greenland belongs to Denmark. So not ruling out military intervention means that for the new US president it would not be inconceivable to invade the territory of a Nato ally.”
Possibility of negotiations in the near future
Tvnet also fears a major conflict:
“Given that Denmark has shown no willingness to grant Greenland independence, and is instead investing more in ensuring its military presence and giving more prominence to the Greenlandic polar bear in the royal coat of arms, we may see an interesting interaction between the interests of the two Nato members the US and Denmark in the years to come. While a military occupation by the US is an unlikely scenario, Trump is already exerting pressure with his rhetoric, according to which the use of force is not out of the question, which points to the possibility of negotiations in the near future.”
Focus on frozen island to distract from hot war
In a Facebook post, Abbas Galliamov says that this could be an attempt by Trump to divert attention to foreign policy:
“Either he's really losing his mind or he's cynically trying to change the agenda. This could be linked to certain problems – including those related to Russia and Ukraine. Having realised that he won't be able to fulfil his promise to end the war in 24 hours, Trump may now be trying to ensure that no one even remembers it. The new-old US president is a leader who focuses on appearances rather than substance, so he has no qualms about simply replacing failed projects with something else.”