Transcription
It might be thousands of miles and a NATO membership apart from Venezuela, but this morning in Greenland, renewed fears that what would have once been unthinkable is one step closer.
Even if Trump's backers on Air Force One laughed at the very question, "Do you expect to take an action against Greenland?" "Well, I don't want to talk about Greenland. Let's talk about Venezuela, Russia, Ukraine. We'll worry about Greenland in about two months. Let's talk about Greenland in 20 days."
"On Venezuela, we talk so much about energy."
"By the way, I have to, I will say this about Greenland. We need Greenland from a national security situation."
Since the US snatched Venezuela's then President Nicholas Maduro from its capital on the weekend, parading him to a New York court, the creaking but long-established international order is recalibrating at breakneck speed. While an administration defined by unpredictability and people led with interventionist hawks does little to dispel jitters about what could happen next to the semi-autonomous Danish territory.
"Greenland should be part of the United States. The president has been very clear about that. That is the formal position of the US government."
"Right. But can you say that military action against Greenland is off the table?"
"You wouldn't mean military action against Greenland. The, the Greenland has a population of 30,000 people. Jake, the, the real question is by what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark? The United States is the power of NATO for the United States to secure the Arctic region to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests. Obviously, Greenland should be part of the United States and nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland."
It's hard to imagine how the NATO alliance, with its founding purpose to collectively protect each member from outside enemies, would survive or even confront an attack from within, not least by its founding and most powerful member. America has a history of coveting the world's largest island. In 1946, President Truman secretly offered Denmark the equivalent of a billion dollars for it, and the US established bases there during the Cold War to monitor the Soviet threat.
Greenland's 56,000 inhabitants now find themselves at the heart of an international power struggle between the US, China, and Russia, which claims to have built 400 military posts there since the early 2000s, outnumbering NATO's, all part of its strategy to dominate the region by 2035. While China's designs for a polar silk road has seen it warm up to Putin.
"It's so strategic right now. Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security and Denmark is not going to be able to do it, I can tell you."
But with NATO countries operating large areas of the Arctic already, Denmark upping its investment in Arctic defenses and the US operating its own base in Greenland, seizing the island would be an act of unprecedented isolationism, one that Denmark's prime minister said would spell the end of the post-war alliance.
"Firstly, I believe the American president should be taken seriously when he says that he wants Greenland. But I also want to make clear that if the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops. That is including our NATO and thus the security that's been provided since the end of the Second World War."
While the EU's spokesperson, as well as Greenland's prime minister, played down comparisons to Venezuela, there's one key similarity. It has something the US wants badly. Beneath Greenland's gleaming and increasingly melting ice sheets are 43 of the 50 critical minerals the US has designated key for national and economic security. Minerals China currently has a monopoly on. Today, European leaders in Paris discussing another mineral-rich country in close talks with the US. Ukraine released a statement saying matters concerning Denmark and Greenland are for Denmark and Greenland only to decide, calling two for UN charter principles, including the inviability of borders to be upheld.
But this is a new world in which charter principles are rolled hat. If Venezuela is anything to go by, say critics and Trump's own advisers. "We live in a world in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power."
When Trump first raised his ambition to take Greenland in 2019, he did it in the language he knows best, describing it as essentially a large real estate deal. Then it was derided. Today, there were reports though of a draft US proposal in which Greenland would be given funding in return for handing defense matters to the US, effectively bypassing Denmark. This an administration willing to use levers previously left idle.
We're now joined by Dr. Neil Melvin, director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute. Thank you very much for joining us. Firstly, how far do you think America is capable of going?
Well, I think we've seen a long-term political commitment to taking over Greenland. I mean, that goes back as far as the first Trump administration, but in the last 24 hours, we've seen a doubling down by both by President Trump, but by those also around him to this. It looks like the commitment is probably to try and do this within the next 6 months, possibly ahead of the 250th anniversary of the independence of the United States. And the US has very many levers it can actually pull. So while there's been a lot of focus on this sort of military option, there's economic and political ways forward. And I think this is what we like to see in the next few months unfolding from the US side.
There are reports that they're drafting an agreement that would see Greenland seed all of its defense capabilities and decisions to the US, essentially bypassing Denmark in return for funding and control over its own internal affairs. Is there a world in which either Greenland or Denmark accepts that?
Well, I think it's going to be very difficult for Denmark to accept that. But of course, we do know that there is a strong support for independence in Greenland and if not for actually joining United States. So there may be a way for the US to try and shift the dial on that particular equation. But as we can see in terms of the reaction by the Danish prime minister, this will be an enormous blow politically for the government in Denmark and for the country more broadly. And I think they will seek to escalate that to the European level.
European leaders on the whole have been quite muted thus far. They've just released a statement in which they've stated the need for the UN charter principles to be upheld for the US to respect the sovereignty and inviability of borders. But what recourse do they actually have in all of this?
Well, this is why I think we've seen quite a muted initial response. I mean, now there's an effort to demonstrate solidarity and that word has appeared in this statement and by European leaders. But they, I mean, to use a Trumpian term, that their cards are rather weak at the moment. I mean, they would have to try and escalate this into something like a trade war. But the United States still is playing a central role in European security. It has a lot of economic leverage, a lot of European interests tied up in the Europe in the American economy. So I think the Europeans would struggle to actually have a collective effective response and this, I think, is why we see the leaders reluctant to really stick their necks out too much on this issue at the moment.
America already has a base in Greenland. It can operate there freely. NATO has a large presence in the Arctic. And so what is this about?
Well, I mean, the United States is putting a lot of focus on the security issue and there's no doubt that there is an uptick in the Arctic region of activities by particularly by Russia and potentially by China too and the US is nervous about that. But there are other issues, perhaps more important issues. I think this is a really a political status question for for President Trump. He sees one of his legacy issues as actually expanding the territory of the United States. And I think in the year of the 250th anniversary of the independence of the US, this is this is something that they want to focus on as a political deliverable to the Mara base. And also there are discussions around Greenland resources. We've seen this discussion going on around Venezuela and the oil. Greenland has considerable resources and there' be quite big US economic interests in being able to exploit those.
And given NATO has a large presence in the Arctic to confront, as you say, China, Russia, what would be the point of the US going it alone? Is this about minerals more than it is about protection?
I think it's primarily a political issue. I say it's this status issue. Something that the that President Trump wants to show that like presidents in the past, the United States can expand under him and that's what he can deliver because you, the NATO presence is developing, the Europeans are stepping up in the Arctic, so there are there's sufficient engagement and I think Europeans are trying to demonstrate that that they could actually without the US formally annexing Greenland, they could ensure the security in the region. So this seems to me something of a of a sort of a bluffway United States on the security front.
Denmark's prime minister has said that were the US to annex Greenland, that it would be the end of NATO. It would be the end of the alliance. Do you think that would be the case?
I think that's an open question to be honest. I mean, I think there's no doubt it would be very difficult. Would like to see an enormous loss of trust in the United States that's also already been he hemorrhaging around uncertainty about the US commitment under President Trump. But if the US was to say after having annexed Greenland that it still remains committed to Article 5 and the NATO alliance, I think many European countries would be reluctant to risk giving up that US security guarantee because there is no alternative at the moment in Europe.
Dr. Neil Melvin, thank you very much.