By Prof. Bill Michael
The recent declaration by President Donald Trump regarding his interest in acquiring Greenland has not only stirred the political waters but has also placed NATO at a crossroads of loyalty and strategic interest. This situation pits the sanctity of sovereignty against the allure of geopolitical strategy, asking a fundamental question: will NATO countries side with Denmark, a founding member, or with the United States, the alliance’s de facto leader, over the contentious issue of Greenland?
The immediate and overwhelming response from NATO allies has been one of solidarity with Denmark. European leaders, from Paris to Berlin, have been vocal in their opposition to Trump’s remarks, which hinted at using military or economic might to gain control over Greenland. Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz and France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot have publicly condemned any form of coercion or force to alter national borders, stressing the fundamental NATO principle of collective defense. This principle, encapsulated in Article 5, states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, theoretically including an aggressive stance by one member against another’s territory. The unity shown by NATO countries in this instance is not just about defending Denmark but about safeguarding the integrity of the alliance’s core values. The public and diplomatic backlash has been a clear message that NATO’s commitment to its members’ sovereignty is non-negotiable.
However, beneath this apparent unity, there are strategic undercurrents that might tempt some NATO nations to reconsider their stance. Greenland’s location in the Arctic, increasingly ice-free due to climate change, offers new shipping routes and access to untapped resources, making it a strategic asset in global geopolitics. The U.S., with its existing military presence at Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, could benefit immensely from expanded control, potentially strengthening NATO’s position in the Arctic against Russian advances. This scenario might appeal to countries like Canada or the UK, which share deep strategic ties with the U.S. Yet, even these countries have publicly supported Denmark, indicating that the immediate strategic allure does not outweigh the long-term implications for NATO’s cohesion and the international legal order.
Public opinion in Europe and the diplomatic discourse suggest that NATO countries are overwhelmingly likely to side with Denmark. The alliance’s collective response to Trump’s statements has been one of reasserting its foundational principles over succumbing to unilateral strategic gains by any member, even the U.S. This choice reflects not only the political realities within Europe but also a broader commitment to the norms of international law where territorial claims by force are anathema.
In summary, while the strategic importance of Greenland in the Arctic context is undeniable, the unity and response from NATO countries indicate they will stand with Denmark. This decision underscores a commitment to the alliance’s ethos, potentially at the expense of immediate strategic benefits, highlighting NATO’s resilience when faced with internal challenges. The resolution of this issue could very well set a precedent for how NATO navigates future internal conflicts, emphasizing unity over division.