The problem with Trump is that he has little time for Nato and even less for the UN

Greenland is a Danish island colony in the North Atlantic within the Arctic Circle that owing to its location and sparse population survived the winds of change of decolonisation after World War II. It is the world’s biggest island, but its population is only 60,00 and they live along the coast in the south. They are fiercely independent with a unique island mentality borne of the ferocious Atlantic and Greenland’s vast barren hinterland.

The “winds of change” soundbite is from a speech given British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in South Africa in 1960 that Britain, like other old-world colonial powers – France, Belgium and the Netherlands – accepted the inevitability of decolonisation.

Independence was supported and encouraged by the US after World War II as a consequence of the right of colonial peoples to self-determination. Exhausted by two world wars European powers granted their colonies in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean independence in quick succession between 1945-1980. 

But it seems that in the case of Greenland the US did not press for decolonisation. What it really wanted was to expand its frontiers by populating Greenland rather like it did the Wild West in the 19th century and the acquisition of Alaska from the Russian Empire in 1867. The American frontier spirit for the barren hinterland of Greenland has come alive after years of hibernation.

Now president-elect Donald Trump, who was elected on a policy to make America great again (MAGA), has made the acquisition of Greenland the main plank with which to launch his second administration. On being pressed by a journalist at a press conference last week whether he would rule out the use of force to acquire Greenland he refused to rule it out. It was a threat designed to compel Denmark to sell Greenland to the US. If he repeats it once in office after January 20, it would be a threat to use force by the US that would be in fundamental breach of the UN Charter and international law.

Trump’s threat to acquire territory by force set alarm bells ringing in France and Germany – though not in Britain. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot reacted by invoking defence by the EU. He said: “there is no question that the EU would let other nations of the world attack its sovereign borders” – which was politically welcome by member states although the sovereign borders of the EU do not strictly extend beyond continental Denmark. Greenland joined the European Community in 1973 as part of Denmark, but it became autonomous in 1979 and left the EU in 1985, primarily because the EU’s common fisheries policy was against the interests of its inhabitants.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz was not as Eurocentric but equally condemnatory. He said: “the principle of the inviolability of borders applies to every country whether it is a very small one or a very powerful one.” He invoked international law rather than the defence of EU territory by military means – no doubt mindful of the fact that Germany does not flaunt its military prowess these days. 

Ever pragmatic the UK remained staunchly pro-American. Asked whether he condemns Trump’s threat to annex Greenland Foreign Minister David Lammy said: “he was not in the business of condemning our closest ally.” Why ever not if our closest ally threatens to use force unlawfully against another ally? It may be that the defence interests of Britain would be better served if Greenland belonged to America rather than Denmark. Lammy needs to inform Parliament as soon as Trump repeats his threat to use force to acquire Greenland.

Denmark itself said that Greenland is not for sale although after Trump’s latest outburst the Danish government indicated a willingness to talk to him. Canada which is closer to Greenland than the US is more concerned about Trump’s wish to acquire Canada to be too worried about its neighbour. According to its outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “there was not a snowball’s chance in hell” for Canada to attach to the US as its 51st state.

Both the US and Denmark are members of Nato and the US is its most powerful member.

However, as Nato is a defence alliance against external attack, it would not be possible for Denmark to demand assistance from allies under article 5 of the Nato treaty if the US were to attack Greenland.

Nevertheless Nato member states have obligations over and above defending one another against armed attack. By article 1 of the Nato treaty member states are obliged to resolve international disputes peacefully and to refrain from the threat or use of force contrary to the UN Charter. Greece and Turkey, both members of Nato, came close to war over Cyprus many times and while article 5 of the treaty could not be invoked by them, Nato intervened to help them avoid war and would probably do the same between the US and Denmark over Greenland.

The problem with Trump is that he has little time for Nato and even less for the UN. Judged in purely geopolitical terms Trump sees Danish sovereignty over Greenland as a waste of space given its proximity to the US, its huge geographical size, its rich mineral reserves and the American entrepreneurial spirit that could turn Greenland into a fully populated frontier state to the North East. The world according to the new thinking in the US has moved on from the rules-based order that was accepted after World War II in the immediate aftermath of the lawless world of smash and grab of Hitler and Mussolini.

But there is nothing new about the use of force to acquire territory. The question is whether the frontiers in North America have crystallised sufficiently to prevent Trump from using force to acquire Greenland from Denmark.

Alper Ali Riza is a king’s counsel in the UK and a retired part time judge