Greenland – USA: Diplomacy’s Victory Over Gangster Tactics

The latter is not my characterisation, but it is nevertheless accurate. It was Denmark's former prime minister and UN secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who launched this broadside against Donald Trump when the US president's attacks on an ally peaked earlier this year.

Totally unacceptable

His successor, Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, chose a more subdued tone. He lit his pipe and coolly stated that the American demands were “totally unacceptable”.

The leader of the former superpower, the United States, did not give an inch. At his most extreme, he entertained the possibility of taking over Danish Greenland by military force. It was about US security, Trump said, before later withdrawing his threats of a takeover by force.

Not an unfamiliar manoeuvre from a president steering the American ship without a map.

Instead, he brought out another weapon from his primitive toolbox: economic sanctions and sky-high tariffs.

Well, yesterday an agreement was signed at the UN, an agreement that primarily confirms the situation as it was before the conflict began. A conflict so heated that, if it had not been resolved, it threatened to tear the NATO alliance apart.

NATO, not the US

There are two reasons why the agreement is worth more than the paper it is written on.

Firstly, it did not merely clear up the relationship between Denmark and the US. It is also a victory for a NATO which, with the exception of the US, has stood united by Denmark's side. And which has been willing to demonstrate this along the way, both verbally and through military exercises.

The Nordic foreign ministers issued joint statements in support of Denmark, as did the United Kingdom, Germany and France.

The agreement eventually signed also makes a point of stating that it is NATO as an organisation, not the US, that is to ensure Greenland's independence and security.

Arne O. Holm comment:

Clowns at War in The Middle East and The Arctic

Arne O. Holm

Secondly, the agreement is also important from a purely Arctic perspective.

As an increasing number of international military exercises are held in the Arctic, this is a direct consequence of the High North constituting a security policy focal point, where, not least, the rivalry between the US and Russia in the north plays a role.

Pressed between two presidents waging war in third countries, this requires a shared European understanding of the importance of being able to defend the Arctic and, as far as possible, keep military conflicts at bay.

United against the USA and Russia

NATO stands united against Russia. The agreement between Denmark and the USA shows that NATO can also act when an ally threatens security in the Arctic.

For no matter how much Donald Trump may try to portray the agreement as a victory for his own aggression, the truth is that he is once again left exposed as a poor negotiator, without any sign of strategic thinking.

This time, clear and unyielding diplomacy prevailed and sent the gangster home empty-handed.