Greenland & Spheres of Influence
The USA–Denmark conflict over Greenland diverts attention from more important issues on which politicians and the media should focus.
Atle Hetland
The current USA–Denmark conflict over Greenland is wider than it seems at first. It has to do with spheres of influence. The USA wants to have more direct influence and power over larger geographic areas in its neighbourhood. Greenland is close to the USA, the world superpower, yet it is actually closer to Canada, and also to the European countries of Iceland, Denmark, Norway, and the other Nordic countries.
Russia is relatively close to Greenland and its sphere of influence, indeed outside the sphere of influence of the West. Greenland is important to the USA and the West precisely in the competition with the great powers of Russia and China. Yet Greenland is already part of the West and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO); thus one could argue that there would in principle be little geopolitical change if Greenland were transferred from Danish rule to US rule, and finally gaining full independence, which the USA probably would be less willing to grant Greenland than Denmark is.
My article today is a continuation of last week’s article. I shall give some further details about Greenland’s past and present, and why it will become strategically more important in the future, as a key part of the West’s sphere of influence. From that perspective, it is logical that the USA shows increased interest in Greenland. However, the USA’s way of approaching it under President Trump is wrong, indeed if international law is set aside and undue pressure and force are used. Yet the current dispute between the USA and Denmark over Greenland, including NATO and the EU, has placed Greenland and the Arctic region higher on the international agenda, which in the long run may well be an advantage to the West and NATO on the northern flank of Europe near Russia.
Let me now present some historical data as background to showing why Greenland indeed is a part of the West’s sphere of influence. Greenland has been under Danish colonial rule since the 1380s, when Norway also came under Danish rule following Norway’s weakening after the Black Death in the 1350s, and the country became known as the Kingdom of Denmark–Norway until 1814. At the beginning of the 1700s, Greenland was ‘rediscovered’ after long isolation by the Norwegian priest Hans Egede, who became the leader of the missionary work and colonial business in Greenland through his Bergen Greenland Company. He undertook the first exploration activities in Greenland from 1721, with wide powers granted by King Frederick IV.
Danish rule and the Christianisation of Greenland’s Inuit people (earlier called Eskimos) continued after Egede, but it was not until 1953 that Greenland became a fully integrated part of the Kingdom of Denmark as a province (‘amt’ in Danish), with two members in the Danish parliament in Copenhagen. In 1979, Greenland was granted ‘home rule’, which was expanded further to ‘self-rule’ in 2009. A movement for full independence has been established in Greenland, but without specific timelines or modalities for implementation, and without clarity on what future ties with Denmark will be – and certainly without any plans for transfer to the USA to become a new colonial power. After all, the modern history of Greenland is intertwined with that of Denmark, with links to the other Nordic countries and Europe, for a thousand years.
In 1814, Denmark ‘lost’ Norway, as it had to cede territory after having been on the losing side of the Napoleonic Wars. Norway became a junior partner in a union with Sweden until 1905. But it was not an issue to include Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands, also under Denmark, in the transfers of Norway from Denmark in 1814 and 1905. Iceland, today a country with about 390,000 people, gained independence from Denmark in 1944. The Faroe Islands remain Danish, with ‘home rule’, and an ethnic Nordic population of 55,000.
It is interesting to note that in 1946 the USA offered to buy Iceland, but this was declined by the Icelanders. During the Second World War, the USA occupied Iceland and Greenland, while Norway and Denmark were under German Nazi occupation. After the war, the USA had a large military base at Keflavik in Iceland, and it also had several bases in Greenland. Today, the USA has only one air base in north-western Greenland, but under a 1951 agreement with Denmark it has the right to establish more bases and a greater presence in Greenland.
When President Trump today says that Greenland needs better protection against Russia, and that Danish military protection is insufficient, it could be argued that the USA itself should have paid greater attention to Greenland’s military situation in recent decades. Let us also note that Denmark, and thus Greenland, is part of NATO, together with the USA. Greenland is not a member of the EU, as Denmark otherwise is, because Greenland does not want EU fishing vessels on its shores, recognising that about ninety per cent of Greenland’s economy depends on fishing. Greenland has potential for expansion of its tourism industry, and also for the exploration of rare minerals, but fishing will remain more important.
Due to Greenland’s small population of only about 60,000, its huge size as the world’s largest island, and its strategic geographic location, Greenland needs close cooperation agreements with its neighbours, even more so if and when the major Northern Sea Route becomes a reality, from the Pacific Ocean in the Far East, along the northern coast of Russia, to the North Atlantic Ocean, linking Western Europe and the east coast of North America. The Northern Sea Route, although facing ice challenges, would offer a shorter Asia–Europe route than today’s route through the Suez Canal. With the Northern Sea Route, Greenland and the countries of the Arctic region – certainly Norway with the Svalbard Islands, Canada, and the USA, as well as Russia – will become more important geopolitically. No wonder, then, that the USA wants to have a greater say in that development.
Yet Greenland’s future must be decided on the basis of international law and a sound understanding of history, current realities, and future prospects, through full diplomatic dialogue with all neighbouring countries. It will not really matter much what President Trump says in the media, or even if he threatens Denmark and the European countries that support it with new tariffs on imports of goods to the USA. In many ways, Trump’s behaviour illustrates how leaders of great powers have traditionally thought about their neighbours within their spheres of influence. Much can also be said about Denmark’s rule of Greenland, as can always be said about the rule of larger neighbouring countries over smaller ones, and about colonial rule over distant territories. Many aspects of Danish rule in Greenland were wrong, but this is glossed over in the current USA–Denmark conflict.
Today, the small Scandinavian countries enjoy very friendly relations. This also includes Finland, which over the centuries was under Russia and Sweden as part of their spheres of influence, until achieving full independence in 1917. Greenland is already part of the Nordic community and culture, and will continue to be so when it becomes fully independent.
Finally, let me say today that the USA–Denmark conflict over Greenland diverts attention from more important issues on which politicians and the media should focus. Ending the Russian war in Ukraine should be the highest priority, as should Israel’s war in Gaza and the immediate and long-term situation of the Palestinian people, along with other international peace and conflict issues.
Atle Hetland
The writer is a senior Norwegian social scientist with experience from university, diplomacy and development aid. He can be reached at atlehetland@yahoo.com
