Greenland is not for sale (at the moment)

In Democracy in AmericaAlexis de Tocqueville said that in the United States, power manifests itself in society because Americans do not obey a man but the law. Of course, the French thinker and minister had that impression almost 200 years ago, when the Caesarist drift of the virtuous American political system in the hands of Donald Trump had not yet begun. One wonders: where are the famous checks and balances and the watchdogs?watchdog) who had historically denounced abuses of power in that country?

But we have enough on our plate already. For example, what role do the European Union (EU) and NATO intend to play in the Greenland case, given that only seven European countries (Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, and the Netherlands) have closed ranks with Denmark against Trump's gangsterism? This would be nothing more than another sign of lamentable European weakness were it not for the fact that Trump's threats regarding Greenland remain credible, even though his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has at least ruled out the military option. This is relevant because, without a prior agreement, control of the island can only be achieved through a land invasion, similar to the one that overthrew the Panamanian narco-dictator Eduardo Noriega in 1989. And Article 2.4 of the UN Charter states that its members must abstain from reason, which, in the case of Venezuela, has led them to embrace a narco-terrorist delusion.

The issue, however, is that the US wanted Venezuelan oil and now has it, and that from Greenland they want rare metals and access to new trade routes facilitated by the melting Arctic ice, as well as a way to counter Russian military power and the Chinese presence in the region. Now, although Greenlandic authorities maintain that the island is not for sale, they have at times expressed interest as a way to expand their self-government. It should not be forgotten that this former Danish colony became an autonomous region in 1979, with its own government and legislative assembly, and that although it depends on Denmark for defense and foreign policy, its Constitution recognizes its right to self-determination.

Perhaps that's why the European countries' declaration is cautious, stating that the island's future depends as much on Denmark as on the Greenlanders. Greenland, moreover, left the EEC (now the EU) in 1985, following a 1982 referendum in which a majority voted to withdraw due to the restrictive Common Fisheries Policy. And in 2008, it approved, also in a referendum, expanding its powers and regaining control over its oil resources and decision-making power over the island's economy. It is precisely this level of autonomy that could give the Greenlanders the key to a future sale of its territory. In reality, the Americans are offering a Consensus of Free Association (COFA) similar to the one they have with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau. Under this arrangement, the US provides financial assistance and defense, and these territories maintain their internal autonomy. The first link in this chain could be the agreement signed in 1951 (and modified in 2004) between the US and Denmark, whereby Greenland remains under NATO's protection in exchange for Washington receiving a series of advantages that could be decisive in a negotiation: the establishment of an air base where a squadron dedicated to NASA experiments in the Arctic operates. The US can station and deploy troops, aircraft, and ships if it serves NATO security objectives, without paying taxes. All of this would explain the deafening silence of the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the Secretary General of NATO, Mark Rutte, who have always been so obsequious to Trump.

However, Greenland's opposition leader and former minister, Pele Broberg, has already argued that the island "must engage in dialogue without Denmark present to determine what the Americans want." Nevertheless, any negotiations regarding the territory's status still involve Copenhagen, because when self-government was expanded in 2009, security and defense were excluded. These matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Danish government and Parliament, which must grant permission for any deployment of troops from another state. Should Greenland wish to exercise its right to self-determination in the event of a disagreement, this would require a local referendum followed by approval from the Danish Parliament, where Greenland holds only 2 out of 179 seats. Furthermore, the island has the status of an Overseas Country and Territory (OCT) associated with the EU. If Trump were to act unilaterally, this would give Denmark grounds to invoke Article 5 of the NATO treaty and activate the mutual defense commitment and the mutual defense clause of Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union. This is a far more sinister situation than it appears.