Trump has said Landry’s goal will be to make the autonomous Danish territory “part of the U.S.” That objective was rejected in a joint statement by Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who said Greenland “belongs” to the Greenlandic people and that the United States “shall not take” the island.
Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt said recent talks with the US ambassador did not address Landry’s appointment. “In Greenland nothing has changed. The future of our country is decided by the people of Greenland. We are not Danes. We are not Americans – and we do not wish to become so. We are Inuiaat Kalaallit, we are the people of Greenland,” she said, adding, “Our country belongs to us and it is not going to be controlled or owned by others.”
Analysts warned that Trump’s approach could provoke wider international backlash if pursued further. “I think that this would be viewed, if it did go that direction, it would be viewed worldwide as the beginning of a new era, an era in which the United States was not just not supporting existing norms about sovereign territory, but also actively attempting to overturn those norms,” said Christopher Chivvis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Trump has downplayed Greenland’s mineral wealth, instead stressing strategic concerns linked to Russian and Chinese activity. “We need [Greenland’s] financial security, not for minerals. We have so many sites for minerals and oil and everything,” he said, adding, “We need Greenland for national security,” and later stating, “We need it for national security. We have to have it.”
Marc Jacobsen of the Royal Danish Defence College said the envoy appointment and other moves “should be seen as new elements in this strategy,” but warned they were backfiring locally. “In Greenland, however, these efforts are counterproductive as Greenlanders are seeing the U.S. as more and more antagonistic and a less desirable partner on the road to independence,” he said.
Chivvis questioned what Washington would gain beyond its existing defence cooperation with Denmark. “It’s not clear exactly what the president believes he’s going to get, maybe a slightly better deal on some of those fronts, but it would be paying an extraordinary cost for a very small benefit,” he said.
Jacobsen suggested the standoff could still end with a symbolic outcome short of a takeover. “It might not be significantly different from the one already in place, but it could provide Trump with a visible outcome, which he could present as a victory,” he said.
Source: The Hill.
