Anne Sofie Allarp: Trump has noticed Greenland's own political fault lines
The Americans are taking seriously the statements that have come from Greenlandic politicians in recent years.
By: Anne Sofie Allarp
Three weeks have passed since U.S. President Trump appointed a special envoy to Greenland and began to reassert his claims to the territory. From the Danish side, much has been done to reject the American demands and speak loudly to the press and on social media about the unacceptable nature of the U.S.’s behaviour. With Trump saying this past weekend that he will tariff European countries that offer support for Denmark against U.S. pressure, this is clear a problem that will consume much official attention in Europe for the foreseeable future.
Amid all the political and gepolitical analysis, much less energy is being put into understanding what thoughts could lie behind the U.S president’s dramatic statements, particularly here in Denmark. Probably because it challenges some central taboos in the Danish Commonwealth.
Part of the U.S.’s demand to control Greenland rests with concerns over the political stability, including the political climate and realistic future prospects, in Greenland. This applies to the prospect of secession from Denmark and the Greenlandic freedom to seek investments and alliances around the world that will result from this. The Americans are also taking seriously the statements that have come from Greenlandic politicians in recent years.
As established by the 2009 Self-Government Agreement, Greenland can secede from Denmark whenever it wishes. Section 21 of the Self-Government Act means that a “decision on Greenland’s independence shall be made by the Greenlandic people.” After negotiation, a referendum in Greenland and approval in the two parliaments, Greenland will be completely free and in principle be able to seek cooperation and alliances with whomever it wishes.
Every state with interests in the Arctic is aware of this scenario, including China and Russia.
Greenlandic politicians cannot be elected without talking about independence. Not even massive pressure from the U.S., such as what’s being seen under Trump, will make the Greenlandic political elite seriously reconsider. On the contrary, it seems to have triggered a certain opportunism.
Thus, last weekend, all five Greenlandic parties in Greenland’s parliament, the Inatsisartut, issued a joint statement that they wanted to “be Greenlandic,” neither American nor Danish.
Last year, immediately after Trump renewed his claim to the territory, then-chairman of the Greenlandic self-government, Muté B. Egede, said: “It is now time for our country to take the next step. Like other countries in the world, we must work to remove the obstacles to cooperation — which we can describe as the shackles of the colonial era — and move on.”
He emphasized that it was also “with regard to who Greenland should cooperate closely with, and also who our trade relations should be.”
There are many historical reasons why people in Greenland want to get rid of Denmark. They have been rejected, belittled, and discriminated against in their encounters with Danish culture. It is a painful experience that we, from the Danish side, have so far sought to soothe by recognizing the principle of the Greenlanders’ right to self-determination without further demands, conditions or discussion.
The prospect of independence combined with the political signals that regularly leak from Greenlandic politicians, for example about cooperation with China or demilitarization of the island, unavoidably creates uncertainty about the future in a strategically important area close to the United States, where the Americans have important military installations and which possesses rare earths and metals.
The uncertainty is not diminished by the fact that China has shown interest in building and financing new airports in Greenland (Nuuk, Ilulissat, Qaqortoq), and by China’s involvement in the controversial Kvanefjeld mining project in South Greenland. And it doesn’t look good from the Danish side that the same partly Chinese-owned company behind the Kvanefjeld mine has hired a former Danish foreign minister to promote its interests in the conflict that has arisen around the project.
Such uncertainty is one of the worst things for investments and construction and for long-term strategic cooperation. It is of course a stone in the shoe for the United States, which has undertaken to help guarantee security in the Arctic. The Greenlandic political realities cannot be denied, but nor should we ignore how they plays out in a geopolitical environment that is being rapidly transformed by the changes sweeping the United States and its role in the world.
Anne Sofie Allarp is a Danish political analyst. A version of this article first appeared in Weekendavisen; it has been updated to cover recent developments, and is used here with permission.
The Line is entirely reader and advertiser funded — no federal subsidy for us! If you value our work, have already subscribed, and still worry about what will happen when the conventional media finishes collapsing, please make a donation today. Please note: a donation is not a subscription, and will not grant access to paywalled content. It’s just a way of thanking us for what we do. If you’re looking to subscribe and get full access, it’s that other blue button!
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Please follow us on social media! Facebook x 2: On The Line Podcast here, and The Line Podcast here. Instagram. Also: TikTok. BlueSky. LinkedIn. Matt’s Twitter. The Line’s Twitter.Jen’s Twitter. Contact us by email: lineeditor@protonmail.com
Kudos to The Line. This is the first analysis I've read that goes beyond "Orange Man is/isn't bad." As usual, there is a lot of nuance to the story that other media don't want known.
Certain portions of this essay sound the same as Alberta’s relationship to Canada.