Why Greenland should be protected from Trump
In 2019, when Donald Trump first proclaimed that the United States should "buy Greenland," Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen rightly dismissed the idea as "absurd." Greenland is not for sale, she noted.
But now that Trump is returning to the White House, he believes that it is an "absolute necessity" for the US to get "ownership and control" of the huge Arctic territory.
Flabbergasting as such pronouncements may seem, they are no laughing matter.
Read more about why Greenland should remain with Denmark and why rushing toward independence isn’t a good idea in a column by Carl Bildt, former Swedish Prime Minister and Foreign Minister – Trump’s indecent proposal: why Denmark must keep control of Greenland.
The author stresses that Greenland's status should be treated with care and compassion, lest a much larger crisis ensue. That would not serve anyone’s interests.
To illustrate his point, he recalls Greenland’s history:
Greenland was a Danish colony until 1953, when it became an actual province of Denmark.
The vast island (the world’s largest, in fact) then adopted home rule in 1979. Since 2009, Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark have maintained a wide-ranging autonomy arrangement in which a few policy domains – primarily security and defence – remain under the control of the government in Copenhagen.
Most of Greenland’s political parties aspire to independence for the island, and under the 2009 arrangement, they have the right to organise a referendum for that purpose.
"But most Greenlanders recognise that it is too early to take such a step. They first must build up the necessary capacities to function as an independent nation-state," Bildt observes.
He predicts that given Trump’s latest interventions, it is safe to assume that the independence question will dominate Greenland’s next elections, which will be held no later than 6 April. But it is highly doubtful that there will be much support for trading the light hand of Danish rule for the grasping hands of Trump and his MAGA coalition.
"For better or worse, Greenlanders are committed to the Nordic welfare model and will not want to abandon it in favour of America’s model," the columnist writes.
He cites data showing that more than half of the island’s public budget is covered by the Danish government, and 90% of its exports (mainly shrimp) go to the EU, where they have privileged access.
While Russia and China also have territorial and economic ambitions in the Arctic, military threats to Greenland are minimal. The closest Russian outpost is 2,000 frozen kilometers away, and China’s two Arctic-capable research vessels seem to be active primarily in the waters around Antarctica.
Moreover, under a 1951 agreement (and subsequent ones), the US already has the right to base military facilities on Greenland.
Denmark, for its part, operates patrol ships around Greenland, and it will soon acquire surveillance drones; but the primary purpose for its small military presence has been search and rescue.
That is all the more reason to manage Greenland’s slow journey toward more autonomy – and perhaps eventually independence – carefully, not with bombast and bullying.
"Trump’s indecent proposal, delivered at the barrel of a gun, is not only absurd but dangerous. Greenland’s evolving light-touch relationship with Denmark is clearly the best option for the island," the former Swedish prime minister concludes.