The betrayed island : A moment when post - war partnerships being tested -- Beijing Review

bjreview.com · Feb 15, 2026 · Collected from GDELT

Full Article

Before the informal European Union leaders’ retreat on February 12 in Belgium and the Munich Security Conference on February 13-15 in Germany, French President Emmanuel Macron, in interviews with prominent European media outlets including newspapers Le Monde and the Financial Times, warned Europeans to prepare for further U.S. moves. He referred to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat to annex Greenland, a Danish autonomous territory, as the “Greenland moment,” stating that Trump’s withdrawal of the threat does not mean a “permanent de-escalation” of the current diplomatic friction between the EU and the U.S. The message reflects the growing confusion and disarray among Europe’s leaders, as the EU appears divided, lacking in direction, and overly deferential to external powers. The cracks in the transatlantic alliance, carefully constructed since the end of World War II, are now clearly visible. In many ways, the dispute over Greenland has come to symbolize this fracture: A moment when longstanding partnerships were publicly tested, revealing just how fragile the post-war order has become. Conference calls This was also evident at the Munich Security conference, where Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen met with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on February 13. “Constructive talk with Secretary of State Marco Rubio together with Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Chairman of Naalakkersuisut, at the Munich Security Conference. Work will continue as agreed in the high-level working group,” Frederiksen later posted on X. Greenland is put on the chessboard of U.S. imperialism, and the fate of its population and future are being played with like pawns. “Without U.S. control over Greenland, it will not be possible for the world to defend itself against Russia and China,” U.S. Vice President J D Vance claimed according to a report published in Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet on February 5. The article went on to say that Vance had also questioned Greenland’s own defense capability given its population of only 60,000, as well as accused Denmark, despite being a U.S. ally, of ”underinvesting in security” to counter the ”threats” from Russia and China in the Arctic. Officially, the high-level working group between the U.S., Denmark and Greenland, is dealing with the U.S. administration’s demand to unconditionally possess Greenland. But in the meantime,Greenland, and the Arctic area at large, is already increasingly being militarized. In the days leading up to the security conference, ahead of a meeting of Allied Defence Ministers at NATO headquarters, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte outlined plans for the ”Arctic Sentry,” an initiative aimed at strengthening security in the Arctic and High North. “Investment is up by tens of billions,” Rutte said. This happens with the full complicity and active engagement of the ruling circles in Denmark. Anyone following NATO-Denmark politics knows that appeasement with the empire is the predominant position of all Danish governments since World War II. And, in this case, to the detriment of the Greenlanders. The state of affairs Trump has repeatedly stated that the U.S. wants to control and own Greenland. Greenland, or Kalaallit Nunaat, has been inhabited for 4,500 years and its people are linked to the Inuits in all Arctic Area. It is the largest island in the world. It covers an area larger than France, Germany, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, Greece, Switzerland and Belgium together. And let’s make it crystal clear: Greenland never “belonged” to the U.S. In 1916, then U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing issued a statement that the U.S. would not protest against the Danish Government extending its political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland. In 1933, an international court ruled that Greenland belonged to Denmark. Greenland became a Danish colony with the establishment of the state-owned Royal Greenland Trading Company in 1774. Royal Greenland Trading Company was the actual colonial administration until 1908, when trade and administration were separated. Over the years, Danish companies extracted different minerals from the underground, including cryolite, iron, zinc, lead and silver. In 1953, the colonial era formally ended, but there was no political equality with Denmark. Following a referendum, a so-called ”home rule” was introduced in 1979, and in June 2009, it was replaced with the status of today: self-government. The self-government status means that the Greenlanders now own the rights to the Greenlandic subsoil and the minerals and values found there. But, its foreign- and security policies are decided upon in Denmark. Therefore Greenland is considered NATO-territory. Greenland is not an EU member. In 1982, the Greenlandic people, through a referendum and with a majority of 53 percent, voted to leave the then European Economic Community, now the EU. Greenland today belongs to the EU Overseas Countries and Territories. In 1951, a secret agreement between the U.S. Government and Denmark’s envoy to the U.S. recognized the U.S. military’s involvement in Greenland. The agreement was highly controversial and in detriment to official Danish policies at the time. Nevertheless, it is still in force today and has been confirmed repeatedly. In practice, it grants unlimited U.S. military rights over Greenland. Thus, the U.S. for decades has had several military facilities in Greenland. The history of these facilities include forced evictions of Inuit families in 1953, the crash of an American B-52 plane carrying four atomic bombs in 1968, and other detriments to the local population. The Danish Government has repeatedly stated that Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders and is not for sale. But the reality is that Denmark has been selling off Greenland to the U.S. for decades. “We already have a defense agreement between the Kingdom and the U.S. today, which gives the United States wide access to Greenland,” according to an official statement by Frederiksen in early January. A matter of control The question arises why the Trump administration wants an annexation of Greenland, when his empire already has so many rights over Greenland. Well, it’s all about the new security strategy and the demand of unquestioned and unlimited control. Control over oil. Control over minerals. Military control. Greenland possesses at least 25 of the 34 minerals designated as “critical raw materials” by the European Commission. Greenland has significant deposits of rare earth elements as well as other minerals including copper, nickel, zinc, gold, diamonds, iron ore, titanium, tungsten and uranium. Trump wants American companies, many of which have invested heavily in his re-election, to have unfettered access to these precious Greenlandic resources. Besides this, Greenland’s geographical position near the Arctic is important. Control of the sea routes to the north, the Northeast Passage, is becoming increasingly important as climate change takes hold. A fully controlled, militarised and rearmed Greenland is intended to also be an advanced base against both Russia and China. Besides the prospect of super-profits, keeping socialist China far away from Greenland is a strategic goal for both the U.S. and Denmark. But is is ironic that the people of Greenland does not at all feel it self threatened by Russia and China. A 2024 survey conducted by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, a prominent German political foundation, before the Trump 2.0 administration, showed that under three percent of Greenlanders feel threatened militarily. Earlier, until recently, Greenland had been pursuing a gradual process of greater self-determination and moving away from its colonial legacy. But the current imperialist posture emanating from the White House has caused a serious setback for Greenland's ability to decide its own future. The threats and pressure are enormous. The author is chairperson the Danish Communist Party Copyedited by Elsbeth van Paridon Comments to dingying@cicgamericas.com This article reflects the author’s views and not necessarily those of Beijing Review