Q&A of the Day – How Greenland is Governed & Implications for the U.S.
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Hey Brian, here’s one for the Q&A. The Danish PM said if the U.S. tried to seize Greenland it’d be the end of NATO. Aren’t NATO countries mandated to defend any NATO countries that come under attack? Not that I think we’d militarily fight NATO countries, but wouldn’t moving on Greenland mean that in theory the U.S. would be at war with NATO countries? Also, what’s the realistic path for the United States to get out of Greenland what President Trump wants to see happen?
Bottom Line: They’re good questions. Around a year ago when President Trump was nearing the start of his second term not many politicos took Trump’s stated desire to control Greenland all that seriously. Following the surprise removal of Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela – President Trump’s recent statement that “we need Greenland” is being looked upon with additional seriousness. That’s likely wise for a couple of reasons. For example, you may recall that a year ago when the Greenland talk was first taking place, President Trump was also stating that the United States should rename the Gulf of Mexico. He clearly wasted no time in making that one happen.
By now everyone should be aware of two things when it comes to President Trump’s stated intentions 1) He means what he says and follows through on promises 2) He’s intentional in how he says things. Often the way he characterizes his intentions is designed for the purpose of negotiation. Specific to the matter of Greenland what President Trump has stated as his position is this dating back to when he brought the issue back into scope at a press conference in December: We need Greenland for national security. You look up and down the coast, you have Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need it for national security. We have to have it.
Most recently, following the ouster of Maduro, when the president was asked if he’d consider military action to achieve the desired outcome, he didn’t rule it out. It’s at this point that it would help everyone who still doesn’t understand President Trump to read 1987’s Art of the Deal. Many, including the Danish PM have taken the president’s comments to mean that he’s looking to use the military to conquer Greenland for the United States, or that perhaps it’s his preference. If that were the case, it would have already happened. However, regardless of what Trump is or isn’t willing to do to achieve the objective, it’d be a dumb negotiation tactic to rule anything, including the ultimate leverage of military intervention, out. As for the question about NATO’s charter and the implications if the U.S. were to invade Greenland...
The North Atlantic Treaty has 14 articles. Specific to today’s question, it’s Article 5 that would be in focus. It reads as follows:
- The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Now a couple of points as it pertains to Greenland and NATO. First, as a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, it is a NATO member. However, in the text of the defense article you’ll notice two key points. The first is the use of the characterization “armed attack”. It’s only an “armed attack” that triggers Article 5 protection. In other words, the United States going in guns ablazing would need to occur. Notably, Greenland doesn’t have a military, it’s Denmark’s military that’s responsible for Greenland’s defense. So, in this hypothetical exercise it would have to be the U.S. military taking out what little Danish defense exists in the territory (where by the way the United States already maintains a military base). Also, the article is framed in the context of non-NATO threats. The article doesn’t address an attack from one member on another. This is why the Danish PM has stated that if the U.S. were to do such a thing it would “be the end of NATO”. She’s probably right about that point.
Of course, President Trump’s objective isn’t to blow the small Danish military to pieces. If the U.S. military were to get involved it’s far more likely that it would be a seizure as opposed to an armed attack. But again, Trump’s use of the military isn’t his preference. Just as he gave Maduro ample opportunity to vacate Venezuela and leave in exile, his goal is to negotiate a desired outcome with Greenland. So, about that...
It’s doubtless that President Trump wonders why it is that Greenland is a Danish territory when they could instead become a U.S. territory. The geography makes more sense. The economic and military capabilities are exponentially higher for Greenland. So, about that.
The US last undertook a territorial expansion in 1947 when the Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands and Mariana Islands became US territories through UN authorization following World War II.
Key to this conversation is that Denmark doesn’t “own” Greenland anymore. Greenland’s timeline goes like this:
- Until 1953: Danish Colony
- 1953-1979: Danish territory
- 1979-Present: Home rule
To add a little clarity to that evolution... Until 1953 Greenland was to Denmark what the 13 original colonies were to what became the United States. For about 26 years Greenland effectively became a state of Denmark. Since 1979, Greenland has had government autonomy from Denmark. This includes the ability to have their own parliament, prime minister, anthem and flag. What’s more is that the independence was expanded under law in 2008. Greenland controls education, taxation, mining, aviation, family law and immigration law – though it does still rely on Denmark for military considerations. It’s a bit of a unique arrangement. The arrangement is similar to some US territories but is different in classification. The governmental term of the arrangement is that Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark.
Basically, what’s happened here is that Greenland operates in a sovereign way except for areas where it doesn’t want to... a la attempting to account for a military which would be a futile effort for an island with a population of 56,789 people, or less than the Town of Jupiter’s population for ease of comparison. The biggest obvious governmental divide that exists is this... Denmark is a member of the European Union. Greenland is not. That’s how much autonomy they have in making their own governmental decisions.
Notably, Greenland’s Prime Minister last year in an address said this: (Greenland has to take) a step forward and shape its own future. He added this: Greenland is for the Greenlandic people. We do not want to be Danish, we do not want to be American. We want to be Greenlandic. That was a significant statement because he effectively positioned Denmark and the United States on similar footing.
As it sits now – with Greenland still accepting of its “semi-autonomous” status, any negotiation would have to involve Denmark as they still have established ties in the areas Greenland outsources to Denmark as a lose consideration as part of their kingdom. If, however, Greenland were to fully severe ties – which they appear to have the lawful ability to do... It would then be a negotiation between Greenland’s government and the Trump administration. That’s like what President Trump is seeking to lean on at this stage of the negotiation process.