How Denmark Could Deal with the US in Greenland

Denmark should transform a potential military takeover into a political battle by calling for a referendum in Greenland.

As a follow-up to my article last week about the Trump administration’s return to its initial bellicosity, I want to develop a response to the scary situation of the US’s imperial ambition over Greenland based on my idea of democratic realism. Faced with the prospect of having to face down a military might such as the United States, naturally Denmark, Greenland, and Europe have gone into full panic mode, and while I’m sure there are the characteristically “sensible” suggestions on the table, here is a case where democratic realism can be utilized to essentially “poison-pill” Greenland against any potential hostile takeover.

Firstly, as I have identified before, it’s important to recognize that Trump is using his high-pressure negotiation tactic in order to get Greenland for the best price he can. As we have seen with NATO, the trade wars with China, with Hamas, and with Venezuela, Trump ramps up the geopolitical pressure to the maximum and then does a deal in the last instance. This often involves rhetoric that offends most diplomats and mainstream politicians, and they often act hysterically about the hypothetical consequences and how it will affect international law. But the worst that Trump says rarely ever happens, and I think by now we need to start seeing it as a tactic, rather than an actual proposal. He just wants the best possible price for what he wants.

Secondly, it’s also necessary to recognize that Denmark and Europe could not fight the US on the battlefield. For very much the same reasons of their own complacency when it came to outsourcing all military supremacy over to the United States, Europe has made itself extremely vulnerable to the shifting interests of different American administrations. This was an extreme folly, and it is vital that we call it out; Europe has for too long relied on the letter of international law without considering the actual resources necessary for ensuring the spirit is preserved. Unfortunately, this situation is irreversible in the short term, and one of the principles of democratic realism is that we use what we have available to us today.

What Denmark needs to do is to transform the battlefield from a military one—which they can’t win—into a political one, where Denmark can leverage its advantages of its presence in Greenland to delay a potential US invasion. And it should do this by announcing a referendum on the principle of US sovereignty of Greenland. While it might seem a risky strategy, using a referendum would be clever for a number of reasons. First of all, by simply announcing a referendum, you’ve already done what the Danish army couldn’t do: stopped the invasion. The US—though worryingly open to a military option in Greenland—would, given the option, prefer a peaceful resolution, even if it means fighting a referendum campaign. By announcing a referendum on the US takeover of Greenland, Denmark can effectively wrestle the timeline out of the US’s hands.

Second of all, this would be a battlefield in which the Danes would clearly have the upper hand over the Americans. While the US would of course try to influence the result through electoral interference, the Danes know the Greenlandic political, cultural, and social terrain far better and launch a far more effective campaign strategy. To even mitigate covert inferences from the US, it would be a good idea to let US campaigners campaign freely for the Yes vote and see how they get on. Even with the US’s idea of opening its checkbook and payments of up to $100,000 per Greenlander to encourage secession, the likelihood of the money just being pocketed and ignored is higher than it actually changing the voter; let the Americans waste their money. Seeing Americans being hit with snowballs by Greenlanders would also help push advice against military takeover, to which it would be clear they would meet resistance. 

Thirdly, the time between the announcement of the referendum and the day of the vote is time enough for the Danes to offer concrete solutions to what the Americans want. As I said above, the actual territorial ownership of Greenland is merely Trump’s opening gambit and, if met with serious proposals, the Danes and Europeans could negotiate a resolution that gives the Americans what they want when it comes to geopolitical strategy and mineral access while the Danes maintain sovereignty. For example, the deal could be a 99-year total security lease or an expanded Compact of Free Association (similar to what the U.S. has with Palau or the Marshall Islands). “We want to own Greenland” can mean a lot of things, and this would be the US’s transactional realism being played against itself. It would also be wise to take advantage of the upcoming US midterms and open the political battlefield on two fronts.

Most importantly, in this plan, the decision over Greenland’s global position is handed directly to the Greenlandic people themselves. Where a military takeover would clearly violate Greenlandic self-determination and a seemingly jealous Danish government clutching onto its colonial riches might look bad, the referendum solution puts the decision where it should lie. It weaponizes a moral principle without violating it.

Of course, this strategy is not without risks. The first risk is naturally with the result of the campaign itself. What if the Greenlandic people actually would like to join the US and vote yes? This is a real risk that ought to be considered, but part of the strategy of opting for a referendum is that it is clear that Greenlandic public opinion is demonstrably against joining the US, so even if the needle shifts a little, it would likely not be enough to tip the balance. The other more realistic risk is that this would be bad for Denmark in the long run, as a referendum today might embolden the push for one on independence tomorrow. This is a serious risk, but I actually think the opposite might be true: by seeing the Danes’ willingness to give them their own choice and to defend them from US imperialism, the Greenlandic people would possibly feel more seen and protected by being close to Denmark than on their own.

But the biggest barrier to this plan is actually the Danish political system itself. With Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen facing elections in October and with the Danish right-wing completely opposed to any situation that might lose Denmark Greenland, the political maneuvering involved in convincing the Danish political scene is significant. The time involved in approving and organizing the referendum is also a point that would need to be solved; however, this could also play in Denmark’s favor. The biggest hurdle is actually the fact that the Danish and Greenlandic governments would need to bypass the standard, multi-year independence process laid out in the 2009 Self-Government Act and require a new emergency plan against the threat of a US takeover. For this, Frederiksen would need a 5/6ths majority in the Folketing to fast-track any legal changes.

Despite these problems, the referendum plan is an example of how Europe ought to learn to play the international game in the future. Meek appeals to restraint, urging support for international law, and statements of outrage are not going to hold much water when it comes to this new international scene. Europe needs to learn to use bold, risky geopolitical tactics that are just as underhand as this US administration uses in its own foreign policy. But if Europe can leverage democratic sovereignty as a weapon, it could potentially become a lot more formidable in its own guerrilla way. The time has come for Europe to stop thinking that the rest of the world thinks like it does and to start utilizing its position to act with more ferocity if it hopes to stop being treated like a pushover.