Annexation, purchase, referendum: the US is considering various options for including Greenland in its territory. Reuters even reports on the amount that each Greenlander would receive if they voted in favor of joining the US in a relevant referendum: amounts between 10,000 and 100,000 dollars were discussed.
Regardless of whether these rumors are true and how far the US plan has progressed, the opinion has prevailed in the EU and NATO that Donald Trump has taken the idea of Greenland very seriously.
Rutte's soft tone
The US president refers to national security and the threat posed by the growing presence of Russian and Chinese ships in the Arctic. In this regard, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said in an interview this week: "The US already has an agreement with Denmark since 1951, and it would be completely acceptable for Denmark if the Americans increased their presence in Greenland. This shows that we reach the same assessment and ensure that the Arctic remains secure."
Rutte is known for his soft tone in his relations with Trump. He does not sound critical of Washington. During a visit to the White House a few months ago, he even said on the Greenland issue: "I do not want to involve NATO in this."
Unusual confrontation
In fact, the Alliance's charter does not include the case in which one NATO country could attack another. The enemy always comes from outside. If a conflict arises within the Alliance, there are various bodies in which it can be resolved.
Guntram Wolf from the Bruegel think tank in Brussels does not believe that the threat posed by Russia and China's presence in the Arctic is the real problem. According to him, the US could solve this problem together with Denmark. In the podcast of the German public broadcaster ARD PunktEU, he suggests that Trump has other motives: "Maybe it's also about vanity, maybe Trump wants to go down in history as the president who significantly expanded the territory of the US", says the economist.
"The law is stronger than violence"
For Europeans, the situation is definitely not easy. While Denmark and Spain have condemned the US president's fantasies, and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has even spoken of a "crime", European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has taken a more moderate stance.
"Our community is not perfect, but it is a promise that the law is stronger than violence. Our principles apply not only to the EU, but also to Greenland," she said this week.
Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, with its own government and broad control over its internal affairs, but Denmark is still responsible for foreign policy, defense and finance. Geographically, Greenland is part of North America, but historically and politically it is closely linked to Europe - it is part of the territories of the member states associated with the EU.
The EU also has interests in the Arctic
The EU also has strong interests in the Arctic. An EU office will be located in Greenland from 2024, and a comprehensive Arctic strategy from 2021. It includes closer cooperation on renewable energy, space surveillance and the effects of climate change.
In addition, Greenland is home to a number of important raw materials that the EU urgently needs to be competitive. This cooperation would be much more difficult if the US had the sole say in the Arctic.
Trump's tried and tested model
Trump is following his tried and tested model: the more emotions, the greater the success in negotiations. This was precisely his tactic when he threatened to leave NATO in order to force partners to increase their defense spending by five percent.
The US's military importance to NATO is increasing the pressure on the Europeans. But they could do more than just write a letter in support of Greenland. Guntram Wolf calls for the US ambassadors to be summoned to the major EU capitals or for the EU's Rapid Deployment Capacity, the decision to create which was made in 2022, to be activated and sent to Greenland.
What is the US risking
Stephanie Babst, a former member of the NATO planning staff, also believes that statements of solidarity have no effect on the US. In addition, the Europeans could - and should - provide a – – – – a – – "fundamental" response to US aspirations. Because, as Babst tells ARD, the US also wants something from Europe: "The Americans want to continue to station troops on our continent, they want us to buy their weapons, they want us to buy their technology."
It is by no means the case that Europeans do not have the leverage to send a clear signal to the US. But nothing of the sort is being heard in Brussels, she says.
Author: Sabrina Fritz (ARD)