JD Vance Will Join Usha Vance In Greenland This Week

Statement by Dr Dwayne Ryan Menezes, Founder and Managing Director of Polar Research and Policy Initiative (PRPI), on the announcement by JD Vance that he will be joining Usha Vance in Greenland later this week: 

On Tuesday, 25 March, the US Vice-President JD Vance announced that he will be joining Second Lady Usha Vance on her visit to Greenland later this week, 27-29 May. In a video shared on X, he shared:

“There is so much excitement about Usha’s visit to Greenland this Friday that I decided that I did not want her to have all that fun by herself, so I am going to join her. I’m going to visit some of our guardians in the Space Force on the northwest coast of Greenland and also just check out what is going on with the security there of Greenland. As you know, it is really important: a lot of other countries have threatened Greenland and threatened to use its territories and its waterways to threaten the United States, to threaten Canada and of course to threaten the people of Greenland, so we’re going to check out how things are going there. So speaking for President Trump, we want to reinvigorate the security of the people of Greenland because we think it is important to protecting the security of the entire world. Unfortunately, leaders in both America and in Denmark I think ignored Greenland for far too long. That has been bad for Greenland. That has also been bad for the security of the entire world. We think we can take things in a different direction, so I am going to go check it out.”

I would like to reiterate and update the points I made in my last statement issued at the time the visit of Usha Vance was announced. Please find the statement below:

“Given Greenland’s strategic geographic location, abundant resource wealth and importance for US defence and security interests, it is entirely understandable that Trump and Vance should see it as representing both an enormous vulnerability and an equally significant opportunity for the US. The desire to secure the long-term interests of the US in the face of increasing activity by Russia and China in the wider Arctic region is wholly legitimate. Equally sound is the wish to avert any risk that a future government in Greenland might call into question long-standing defence arrangements the US might have in Greenland, given they are secured by agreements that might now be perceived as having been signed by a foreign power (the US) with a colonial power (Denmark). Far from being whimsical or irrational, Trump’s recognition of Greenland’s growing strategic importance and his aim to defend and advance US interests reflect soundness, acuity and foresight.

That is why it is completely inexplicable that he has chosen the most unreasonable way to pursue rather reasonable aims – and indeed the highest-risk way of mitigating emerging risks. Annexing Greenland is simply not the right strategy. Disrespecting the people of Greenland by saying the US will acquire it “one way or the other” is unhelpful and counter-productive as a tactic. Exploiting any legitimate grievances that Greenland may have with Denmark to make the case for it joining the US – in essence, replacing one colonial power with another – is a nefarious deployment of the language of decolonisation to justify ambitions of colonial expansion: an unconvincing gimmick at best. Misrepresenting the aspirations of Greenlanders to mislead the domestic US electorate that many Greenlanders want to be part of the US is more akin to the methods that adversaries deploy to spread disinformation and is disrespectful to both Greenlanders and Americans. In short, the current strategy is doing more harm than good.

There is one further reason why the forthcoming visit is perceived to be so ill-timed and disrespectful. On 11 March, a general election was held in Greenland, with two parties formerly in the opposition - Demokraatit and Naleraq - winning the most votes, while the two parties in the coalition government - Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA) and Siumut - came third and fourth respectively. 

The ball is now in Demokraatit’s court to identify partners with which it would wish to form a coalition government. Demokraatit has a set number of days (45 days) from the day of the election (11 March 2025) to form a new government, so by 26 April. If it cannot reach agreement with the other parties by then and form a coalition, it could trigger a crisis. As of 25 March, the negotiations between the parties continue, and Greenland still does not have a new government in place. Furthermore, on 1 April, local elections are to be held across Greenland to elect members of the five municipal councils.

Denmark has traditionally respected the electoral process in Greenland and, likewise, stayed well clear while negotiations to form a new government were in place. It is highly unusual, thus, that at a time when Greenland still does not have a new government in place, and while negotiations to form a coalition are in progress, and indeed while local elections are to be held a couple of days after the visit, there should be a high-level US delegation visiting Greenland without any invitation from or involvement of Greenlandic and Danish officials. Some local politicians in Greenland are seeing it as foreign election interference, while the outgoing Greenlandic Prime Minister Moute Bourup Egede has described the visit as “highly aggressive”. In an interview with Sermitsiaq, Egede called on the international community to react, saying, “The very aggressive American pressure against the Greenlandic community is now so serious that the level cannot be raised any higher. Standing together in Greenland has not helped, speaking out has not helped, and the diplomatic attempt at dialogue is in vain. Now the international community must react.”

It is important to bear in mind that the US already enjoys extensive defence privileges in Greenland, and Greenland has been a trusted partner and steadfast ally to the US over more than 80 years of close and effective cooperation – through the Second World War, the Cold War and in more recent decades.

Greenlanders have generally been positively disposed to the US, even while ironing out the creases that occasionally appear. Reestablishing a US Consulate in Nuuk, extending USAID funding to supporting economic development and economic diversification in Greenland, and expanding and adapting the US military base in Greenland were steps in the right direction – a healthy mix of soft and hard power that signalled to Greenland just how important it was to the US without presenting a threat of any kind. Likewise, the entry of US companies – albeit only a couple – in the mining sector in Greenland was a positive development in a country which has repeatedly said that while it was not for sale, it was open for business, and that it welcomed greater American interest and investment.

Continuing with measures to cultivate trust and goodwill, while respecting the right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination, would have gone much farther in securing US interests in Greenland than the relentless campaign of disrespect, intimidation and harassment waged against them, so poorly disguised even with the florid use of the rhetoric of liberation. If Trump is as pragmatic as he claims to be, he would do well to recognise that the current approach is backfiring, realise that the idea of annexation is wholly unnecessary and jettison all talk of it, and reorient US strategy to strengthening the bilateral US-Greenland relationship instead – prioritising alliance over conquest. Changing course now would do far less damage to his own reputation and America’s standing on the world stage than persisting with these flashes and flexes of toxic cowboy masculinity. Surely a man smart enough to recognise Greenland’s strategic importance is smart enough to know there is no greater way to weaken America’s hand and hurt its long-term interests than turning its back on its allies, the principal asymmetrical advantage it enjoys over its adversaries.”

© Scoop Media