Briefing - JD Vance's Speech In Greenland And Danish Foreign Minister's Response

In his speech at Pituffik Space Base yesterday, 28 March, JD Vance suggested he was merely clarifying the stance of the Trump administration as to why Greenland matters so much. In reality, it marked a significant and welcome departure, even if in form more than substance. The occasional oversell aside, it was more detailed and meaningful when it came to risk assessment. The belligerent tone against Denmark aside, it was more tactful and calculated with respect to delivery.

Let’s start with the risk assessment. “If a missile was fired from an enemy country or an enemy submarine into the United States”, he said, “it is the people before us who would give notice to our brave men and women further south in the United States to let people know what was coming and, God willing, to try to shoot it down and prepare for it.” He is right: the Space Base plays an indispensable role in early warning missile detection, monitoring and surveillance, and space domain awareness.

He also said, “We know that Russia and China and other nations are taking an extraordinary interest in Arctic passageways, in Arctic naval routes, and indeed in the minerals of the Arctic territories. We need to ensure that America is leading in the Arctic because we know if America doesn’t, other nations will fill the gap where we fall behind.” Again, Vance is not wrong to say that in the face of increasing Russian and Chinese interest and activity in the Arctic, the US must lead and not be seen to be trailing behind.

The concerns Vance enlists are understandable, but I still struggle to see why they warrant ownership and control of Greenland. In a video response, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen noted, "We respect that the United States needs a greater military presence in Greenland, as Vice-President Vance mentioned... We, Denmark and Greenland, are very much open to discussing this with you with an open mind. We still have the Defence Agreement from 1951. It offers ample opportunity for the United States to have a much stronger military presence in Greenland. If that is what you wish, then let us discuss it."

Rasmussen also pointed out, "In 1945, the United States had 17 bases and military installations in Greenland, with thousands of soldiers. Today, only one American base is left, the one Vice-President Vance visited a few hours ago, and something like 200 soldiers. We can do more, much more, within the framework we have today. Let us make use of that, and let us do it together." The question really is: Is there anything preventing the US from expanding the existing base or exploring the possibility of setting up new bases, if Greenland and Denmark are willing to discuss such possibilities?

Then, when it comes to mining, there may be projects across the North wherein Chinese firms have an equity stake, but that is simply because the US did not show the same interest. Only in recent years did we see a couple of US firms enter the mining arena in Greenland, otherwise dominated by British, Canadian and Australian firms. Early in 2021, we called for the creation of a Five Eyes Critical Minerals Alliance alongside the recently established European Raw Materials Alliance to ensure firms could access Western pools of capital and expertise and not have to turn to Russia or China.

In relation to Arctic shipping capabilities, while Russia has the largest icebreaking fleet in the world, with 34 diesel icebreakers and 8 nuclear-powered icebreakers, the US has only two operational icebreakers, neither of which can operate year round. This is a major shortcoming for the US. To his credit, in January, Trump announced that the US planned to order 40 new icebreakers. Whether the US decides to build them on its own or with allies that already have the expertise and experience, such as Canada and Finland, it is a step in the right direction.

Furthermore, while Russia has several major ports along its Arctic coastline, the US has no major deepwater port anywhere between Dutch Harbour in the Aleutian Islands and its Arctic border with Canada. Similar infrastructure gaps can be seen in Canada and Europe. Investing in developing the Port of Nome in Alaska as an Arctic deepwater port, and working together with allies to develop strategic deepwater ports in Grays Bay in Nunavut, Finnafjord in Iceland, Scapa Flow in Scotland and Kirkenes in Norway, all of relevance to northern shipping routes, could be the next step.

In short, there are many more meaningful ways to secure the interests Vance enlists, and while building a stronger bilateral US-Greenland partnership is key, I fail to see why ownership and control of Greenland is necessary.

To return to JD Vance’s speech, the second key element was his stance on Denmark and Greenland. He warned the region was less secure than it was 30-40 years ago, because while China and Russia had taken greater interest, some of the allies hadn’t kept up. “We want to have good relations with everybody”, he said, “but part of having good relations is showing your strength when you have to”, and that could not be said of Greenland where Denmark “passed it all off to brave Americans in the hope that we would pick up the tab.”

He accused Denmark of not devoting the resources necessary to keep the base and its troops, as well as the people of Greenland, safe. “Our message to Denmark is very simple: you have not done a good job by the people of Greenland, you have underinvested in the people of Greenland, and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful landmass, filled with incredible people. That has to change, and because it hasn’t changed, this is why President Trump’s policy in Greenland is what it is.”

Vance adopted a starkly different tone in relation to Greenland in an effort to rebuild trust. “I heard a lot about the respect that our American troops show for the local Greenlandic population; the way that we make and create shelter for hunters and dogsledders, the ways that we found to turn over traditional tribal land to some of the local populations in order to ensure they are able to live in accordance with their values. We respect, as the President said in his State of the Union address, the self-determination of Greenlanders.”

This marked the most important pivot in the speech. “We believe in the self-determination of the people of Greenland”, he reiterated, saying their argument was “not with the people of Greenland who I think are incredible”, but really “with the leadership of Denmark.” He warned that “If Greenland doesn’t have self-determination, if the people of Greenland have their future controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, it is not going to make their lives better off” but make US national security and world security “much, much weaker”.

Cautioning that the island is not safe as “a lot of people are interested in it”, he added, “You’d be a lot better coming under the United States security umbrella than you have been under Denmark’s security umbrella.” The pitch continued: “Yes, the people of Greenland are going to have self-determination. We hope that they choose to partner with the United States because we are the only nation on earth that will respect their sovereignty and respect their security, because their security is very much our security”.

While I welcome the change of approach towards Greenland, I do so with slight wariness as it isn’t clear to me whether the US respects the right to self-determination of the people of Greenland unconditionally - even if it chooses to pursue independence as an end in itself, or to stay with Denmark - or only if leads to independence as a first step on an inevitable path to its eventual absorption by the US. Is the focus on self-determination an authentic reset, or just lip service akin to paying a toll charge to access a highway?

Secondly, it recasts the option before Greenland as one where its people can choose the US to replace Denmark as the senior partner if it is independent, but does little to remove that colonialist assumption of seniority from the table. The Greenlandic aspirations to independence seem to be about more than just indigenous autonomy: it is also about equality. If any small step is to go a long way in strengthening a bilateral relationship, it is treating Greenland not as a junior partner but as an equal partner from the outset. After all, if the US has might on its side, Greenland has legitimacy on its side.

Thirdly, it is difficult to ignore the needlessly belligerent tone adopted towards Denmark to drive home the charge that it had done too little in the Arctic. In his video message, Lars Løkke Rasmussen responded, "Much is being said these days. Many accusations and many allegations have been made. And of course, we are open to criticism. But let me be completely honest: we do not appreciate the tone in which it is being delivered. This is not how you speak to your close allies. And I still consider Denmark and the United States to be close allies."

He went on to say, "The other day, [Vance] said the United States had also done too little. And the fact is that we have all been harvesting the peace dividend. We all acted on the assumption that the Arctic was and should be a low tension area. But that time is over. Status quo is not an option. And that is why we have stepped up as well with a billion-dollar investment in Arctic security just a few weeks ago. An investment that will provide more drones, more ships, more personnel, and more will come later this year." He added that Greenland is part of NATO, covered by its security guarantees.

Having said that, Rasmussen observed, "I am pleased that the Vice-President today emphasised the right of the Greenlandic people to determine their own future. This is important. Just a few hours ago, a new Greenlandic government took office with strong support from the population and with a strong desire to develop the Greenlandic society in close collaboration with Denmark and with the Danish government. We look forward to embarking on this important work.” In saying so, he suggested that the decision of the new coalition government to work with Denmark was an expression of self-determination.

While hoping that the right to self-determination does not become a ball that the US and Denmark try to snatch from each other, I welcome the shift in language away from talk of acquisition and allusion to annexation towards respect for the right to self-determination. Greenland is indeed vital to the US, as the US is to Greenland. Their economic and security interests as well as their geopolitical concerns are legitimate and intertwined, which is why trust and tact are the need of the hour. As tempting as it might be to remain cynical, it is in everyone’s interest to afford the US a fair chance to reconfigure its course.

Going forward, I encourage a de-escalation of the rhetoric on all sides and a return to (re)building trust. Our collective security requires that Greenland is safe and prosperous, and that Western allies show unassailable unity and unrivalled strength in the Arctic. The best guarantee of this is a deepening and widening of the relationship that Greenland enjoys not just with the US but also with European allies. It is for Greenland to chart its own future, and for the US and Europe to offer the people of Greenland freedom, space, support and respect.

Furthermore, while I believe that Denmark and other European allies can and must do more to invest in the safety and prosperity of Greenland and the security architecture of the North Atlantic and European Arctic, I also believe that equally vital to national and international security is the safety and prosperity of Alaska and the Canadian North and the security architecture of the North Pacific and North American Arctic. We would do well to admit that, in recent decades, underinvestment has not been an asymmetrical problem.

Rather than name-calling and finger-pointing, I urge an immediate lowering of the tone used by one ally in relation to another and strongly discourage anti-Greenlandic, anti-Danish and anti-American rhetoric. It is our voluntary unity as free nations, based on shared values and not just common interests, than threatens our adversaries more than our shared military does. While allies can disagree while still being friends, let us never get so caught up in the heat of our disagreements so as to lose sight of who are adversaries are.

Instead, I encourage greater introspection in North American and European Arctic states to determine the reasons for underinvestment in the security infrastructure of the Western Arctic. Can single countries be blamed when the prevailing consensus region-wide was to frame the Arctic as a ‘High North, Low Tension’ area and keep it as free as possible from geopolitical tensions elsewhere? Must we fault Arctic states for embarking on a remarkable experiment at giving peace and cooperation a chance? It did work for more than two decades.

If collective responsibility is to be assumed, may it not be for choosing peace but for recognising that when values aren’t aligned, the only way to maintain peace is through strength. Strength, not to undermine peace but to secure it and thereby pave the way for prosperity. The Russian invasion of Ukraine may have upended the old order of Arctic cooperation but it has reinvigorated the Alliance to grow more symmetrical in its capabilities such that any new order of Arctic cooperation may still seek peace but with greater strength.

Even if one disagrees with Trump and Vance, one can see that they have provided the Alliance with a much-needed shot in the arm. In turn, they would do well to acknowledge that Europe’s underinvestment in its own security infrastructure since 1945 reflected a world order shaped largely by the US that saw advantage in extending its security umbrella to consolidate its leadership and achieve global hegemony. Recent pledges across Europe to invest in defence will reduce not just the financial burden on the US but also its relative dominance.

The reality is that in an increasingly multi-polar world wherein a more complex assemblage of alliances and partnerships is inevitable, the post-1945 US-reliant security architecture in the West simply won’t be the best guarantor of our collective security. There is a need for greater symmetry in strength within the Alliance, which requires a more even spread of capabilities across it. Europe needs to be able to stand alone, not because it cannot trust the US, but because the new world will require a strong Europe in addition to a strong US.

Equally, I would urge Trump and Vance to ask themselves whether belligerence in tone is necessary to drive every single point home and to encourage them to give mutual respect a chance. As mighty as the US is militarily, its greatest asymmetrical advantage over its adversaries is the steadfast values-based, and not just interest-driven, support provided to it by its allies. The irony of the discord of recent weeks is that only adversaries stand to gain. It is time to return to our unity, which is what they most dread.

--

Dr Dwayne Ryan Menezes MA PhD (Cantab) FRHistS FRGS FRSA
Founder and Managing Director

© Scoop Media