Realism views geopolitics as a competition among self-interested states in a leaderless world where power, national interest and survival drive state actions. Greenland is a strategically located island, almost twice the size of South Africa, whose population couldn’t fill a large stadium. US President Donald Trump is noticeably narcissistic, whereas Danes take pride in being modest.
Diverse media voices have portrayed Trump’s stated desire to annex Greenland as bullying that disregards international law. More balanced reports have included map perspectives from above the Arctic depicting the relevance of the Northwest Passage and the gap separating Greenland, Iceland and the UK.
Due to warming temperatures, the Northwest Passage is expected to become commercially and geopolitically highly significant. Greenland’s rising strategic value was also greatly increased when Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine reinforced the realists’ disparaging perceptions of international law.
Danish modesty is real, praiseworthy and inconsistent. Does Denmark’s desire to remain overlords of Greenland not reflect an expensive colonial-era national vanity project? The Danes fund nearly half of Greenland’s public budget. They cover policing, justice, prisons and significant health-care costs. They also pick up Greenland’s defence and coast guard expenses, and the costs for major infrastructure projects.
The payoff for Denmark includes membership with the US, Russia and China of the Arctic Council. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea holding Greenland allows Denmark to advance claims for legal rights encompassing areas near the North Pole, with much oil, gas and mineral potential. Also, Greenland contains much of the world’s rare earth elements.
The Danish position is cheeky in that it suggests that Denmark, through Nato, can defend Greenland. But only the US could defend the huge island from an invasion by China or Russia. The Americans had long allowed themselves to be played by the Europeans in this regard.
Europeans portray Trump’s appetite for Greenland as a reflection of his ego and bullying. They want to frame the issue in terms of sovereignty and respect for international law. The Danes believe losing Greenland would signal the final collapse of the Danish kingdom.
American perceptions of sovereignty tend to reference the beginning of the US constitution, “We the people …”, along with its first and second amendments. That is, sovereignty rests with the people, not their leaders — as President Cyril Ramaphosa implies — and they must preserve it by protecting free speech and the right to bear arms.
The Danish position is cheeky in that it suggests that Denmark, through Nato, can defend Greenland. But only the US could defend the huge island from an invasion by China or Russia. The Americans had long allowed themselves to be played by the Europeans in this regard.
Russia has undermined the world order by invading Ukraine to gather territory, and China has systematically outplayed the World Trade Organisation’s free trade rules. The opening of the Northwest Passage requires a response that Europe cannot provide.
The Europeans want to develop mercantilist gains through a colonial arrangement with Greenland. However, suppose Greenland’s leaders one day decide they prefer a deal China is offering? Canada’s recent trade alignment with China serves as a cautionary tale.
The Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers returned from last week’s meetings with the US vice-president and secretary of state to announce the initiation of a working group. In the same week a trade deal was announced between European and South American countries after 25 years of working group efforts. Europe operates with different time perspectives than the Chinese, Russians or Americans.
Europe outsourced its security to the US. Correcting this would require substantial cuts in social benefits sustained for many decades. However, even this might not be possible as Europe’s economy seems likely to underperform indefinitely.
The US resembles a fort with oceans as moats and mountain ranges as ramparts. Trump’s vision is to make the US an unassailable fortress, economically and militarily, by precluding other powers from challenging US hegemony in the Western hemisphere.
If Russia and China are fundamentally more vulnerable than the US, they can be deterred from undermining the freedoms other countries enjoy. That is perceived less favourably than talk of a rules-based order or the sanctity of international law. However, it is more realistic.
• Hagedorn (@shawnhagedorn) is an independent strategy adviser.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.