By Bill S. Mikhail
The meeting at the Davos Summit in Switzerland on Wednesday, January 21st, 2026 represents a major turning point for the United States policy toward Greenland. President Trump during his speech on that event said two important things. First, the United States will not use military force to acquire Greenland. Second, a “framework,” has been agreed upon to decide the future of this huge island that is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. In addition, the United States will not be imposing tariffs as Trump initially threatened by February first. Undoubtedly, these are all positive developments. Yet, the big question remains as to what future lies for Greenland, and what kind of relationship will exist between the United States and its European allies.
The answer to these two questions will not always be negative statements. The ideal for the Western alliance is still to maintain a degree of disagreement among NATO members, and to retain a least common denominator of strategic consensus over most of the issues of international politics. Europe opposed President Trump emphasizing the right of national self-determination and the stake for Denmark to protect its sovereignty. The opposition extended to include the assertion by the Europeans that there are rules for the international system of relations among nations that must be respected.
The question, however, is the practical one confronting U.S.-European relationships: Can that relationship endure tough crises such as the one of President Trump’s desire to annex Greenland to the territory of the United States, and be adjusted and carried on as normal despite so much strains across the Atlantic between Washington and the rest of the European capitals? Separate actions divide allies. President Trump was invoking institutional memory when he was claiming the desire of the United States to own Greenland. President Woodrow purchased the Virgin Islands known as the Danish West Indies from Denmark by signing a treaty on August 4, 1916. Historical dissensions between the U.S. and Europe had always been settled peacefully whether they were over defense spending, the exchange rate of the dollar, nuclear arms policies, the Suez Crisis of 1956, or the Siberian pipeline dispute during the Reagan Administration.
If Trump is seeking distinction in American foreign policy over Greenland, he ought to consider forming a company modeled on the structure of England’s East India Company to invest in the treasures of this rich-resources giant island. Another idea is to create a joint American-European Commission to use the wealth of Greenland for the advantages of all humankind. One lesson is the advantage of last-minute diplomacy as demonstrated by the wise approach of NATO’s Secretary General Mark Rutte in his talks with President Trump. Second, there is no benefit for the U.S. or a boost of its national interest if it always attacks the Europeans as if such a verbal assault is a goal in itself. Ultimately, all hope that the Greenland quagmire is going to be over soon. The rise of divisions in the Western Alliance has been a necessary step in the Alliance’s progress. The Americans and the Europeans well deplore the troubles they have occasioned, but we should not overlook the perks they have secured.
