Greenland: Tension within NATO
The U.S. president has backtracked on plans to put pressure on the EU with tariffs and has ruled out using force to take Greenland. Still, his threatening attitude may have created a rift within NATO.
Ever since Donald Trump took office for his second presidential term, he has insisted on Greenland’s importance for American national security, amid threats from Russia and China. Trump has revisited an issue he made reference to during his first term, although Greenland’s relevance to the United States dates back to World War II. After Denmark fell under German occupation, U.S. forces were deployed to the island, with the approval of the Danish ambassador, to prevent its use by the Nazis. Then, the need for permanent military bases during the Cold War led to the signing of the 1951 Defense Agreement (updated in 2004), which enables American military bases to operate on the island without calling its sovereignty into question.
“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” This quote, often attributed to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, has acquired a worrying new meaning in recent weeks. Trump declared that he would take over Greenland “one way or the other." He also threatened to apply more tariffs to eight European countries, even though difficult tariff negotiations between the U.S. and EU concluded just a few months ago.
President Trump started his week in Davos, the Swiss resort town that hosts the annual World Economic Forum, by stating that he was “seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland.” He ended it by announcing that he had “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland” after a meeting with the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They did not discuss the relinquishment of Danish sovereignty, with Trump ruling out the use of force and cancelling his proposed tariff hike.
Trump’s sudden change of tune is likely the result of intense domestic pressure (even from within the Republican Party) and the EU’s unwavering resilience. In any event, this is a positive step, as it suggests that there is a limit to the extent to which the U.S. president can do as he pleases. However, it does not dispel fears that his actions have affected the relationship between the U.S., EU and NATO; there is no guarantee that these previously allied nations will continue working together as normal.
While it is true that Trump demanded an increase in Europe’s defense spending some months ago, current events appear to be different. NATO has operated on the concept of mutual trust since its inception in 1949, a tenet which has brought it stability. Article 5 of its founding Washington Treaty specifically enshrines the principle of collective defense; the U.S. directly benefited from this in the wake of 9/11. The fact that America is now the most likely member to pose a threat to the organization, with Trump justifying his pursuit of ownership of Greenland by declaring that only he can adequately defend the territory (even though NATO is obligated to do so), not only weakens the alliance, but is clearly an unprecedented development. If the U.S. president has indeed backtracked on his initial strategy in Greenland, then it is hard to see what use it has served, as it may have created a rift within NATO.
Ever since Donald Trump took office for his second presidential term, he has insisted on Greenland’s importance for American national security, amid threats from Russia and China. Trump has revisited an issue he made reference to during his first term, although Greenland’s relevance to the United States dates back to World War II. After Denmark fell under German occupation, U.S. forces were deployed to the island, with the approval of the Danish ambassador, to prevent its use by the Nazis. Then, the need for permanent military bases during the Cold War led to the signing of the 1951 Defense Agreement (updated in 2004), which enables American military bases to operate on the island without calling its sovereignty into question.
“America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” This quote, often attributed to former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, has acquired a worrying new meaning in recent weeks. Trump declared that he would take over Greenland “one way or the other." He also threatened to apply more tariffs to eight European countries, even though difficult tariff negotiations between the U.S. and EU concluded just a few months ago.
President Trump started his week in Davos, the Swiss resort town that hosts the annual World Economic Forum, by stating that he was “seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland.” He ended it by announcing that he had “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland” after a meeting with the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. They did not discuss the relinquishment of Danish sovereignty, with Trump ruling out the use of force and cancelling his proposed tariff hike.
Trump’s sudden change of tune is likely the result of intense domestic pressure (even from within the Republican Party) and the EU’s unwavering resilience. In any event, this is a positive step, as it suggests that there is a limit to the extent to which the U.S. president can do as he pleases. However, it does not dispel fears that his actions have affected the relationship between the U.S., EU and NATO; there is no guarantee that these previously allied nations will continue working together as normal.
While it is true that Trump demanded an increase in Europe’s defense spending some months ago, current events appear to be different. NATO has operated on the concept of mutual trust since its inception in 1949, a tenet which has brought it stability. Article 5 of its founding Washington Treaty specifically enshrines the principle of collective defense; the U.S. directly benefited from this in the wake of 9/11. The fact that America is now the most likely member to pose a threat to the organization, with Trump justifying his pursuit of ownership of Greenland by declaring that only he can adequately defend the territory (even though NATO is obligated to do so), not only weakens the alliance, but is clearly an unprecedented development. If the U.S. president has indeed backtracked on his initial strategy in Greenland, then it is hard to see what use it has served, as it may have created a rift within NATO.
Previous article![]( "ICE: A Cold That Cuts Flesh")
