Editorial: Greenland braced for an uncomfortable visit

The United States, under President Donald Trump, has been eyeing Canada and Greenland, sending ripples through the global community. There is hardly any evidence of rethinking in the US despite resistance from allies and the absence of support from American voters. Canada declared an end to its traditional relationship with the US based on trade and defence cooperation. A new survey revealed that less than 1 in 5 Americans seem to favour the annexation bid. Against this backdrop comes the proposed visit of US Vice-President JD Vance, his wife and a high-powered delegation to a US military base in Greenland. There are reasons for Denmark and Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory under its control, to be wary and apprehensive about the visit, which changed from a private visit by the wife of the president to that of a high-powered delegation that included the Vice-President himself. Moreover, the visit comes in the wake of repeated assertions by Trump that the US needs to annex the mineral-rich Greenland for security reasons.

It is obvious why the US wants to annex Greenland in particular. In the past, the pursuit of oil was a major reason for geopolitical tensions, sometimes escalating into full-fledged wars. The oil-rich Middle East became a playground for geopolitics and had seen all kinds of diplomatic manoeuvres involving the US and Europe. In the age of semiconductors, the chasing of rare minerals is going to influence foreign policy wrangling. Suffice it to say, Greenland has both oil and minerals.

Over the decades, Denmark had to ease its control over Greenland to the extent that it now retains control over defence, foreign and monetary policies. The nature of Greenland as a “state”, a political entity, and its limited sovereignty has a history. It is pertinent to point out here that Russian President Vladimir Putin refers to the “historical roots” of US intentions.

Firstly, the US has always been accused of “imperialistic expansionism”, but many past US presidents have been subtle about it, or, at least not as brazen as the incumbent. The actions of the US – from tariffs and economic sanctions to outright war – were always couched in the rhetoric of exporting democracy or safeguarding the human rights of the people of the country it is targeting. The US media and its global information and policy apparatus spawned by USAID would prepare the ground for legitimizing its foreign interventions, including war. With the unravelling of US propaganda machinery and partial closure of USAID work, it would be interesting to see how a brazen, in-your-face expansionist talk would

be received by nations across Europe and other continents.

Secondly, traditionally, foreign policy is rooted in the principle of continuity with some space for incremental changes that accommodate either a party’s ideology or a president’s predilections. But Trump is being perceived to be highly unpredictable, and there’s a widespread suspicion in foreign policy circles that there’s neither sufficient collective “thinking through” nor space for diverse opinions and dissent in policy making. And that worries the longstanding Western allies of the US. Even the adversaries are somewhat confounded and perplexed by Trump's prioritizing the logic of business over other macro strategic objectives.

Denmark and Greenland are unsure about how the situation will evolve. They would like to accommodate US business and strategic interests within the global rule of law framework, as they have always done, but this time, they might cede more ground without compromising on its historical territorial integrity and sovereignty.