By Thomas Hughes, Mount Allison University, The Conversation
United States President-elect Donald Trump’s threats against Greenland, Canada and Panama create destabilizing uncertainty about the short-term intent of the U.S. and the long-term nature of its approach to international relationships. NATO’s leadership will have to work adroitly to avoid a crisis.
Warning adversaries about what would befall them if they threatened any of the 32 NATO members through military action is a steadfast NATO function. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty says “an armed attack against one (member of the alliance)…will be considered an attack against them all.”
In the event of such an attack, the other NATO members will take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
While Trump has claimed that U.S. ownership of Greenland is about “protecting the free world,” it’s difficult to see how NATO would view the use of military force against Greenland as anything other than an armed attack on one of its members.
NATO not weighing in
NATO officials have been quiet on Trump’s comments. Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary-general, side-stepped questions on the issue during a recent visit to the European Parliament.
Rutte only said his formal relationship with the incoming Trump administration has not yet started while praising Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen for focusing on “the issue … at stake, which is the Arctic.”
Frederiksen has told Trump privately that Greenland is “not for sale” and that the future of the autonomous Danish territory was a decision for Greenlanders alone.
U.S. foreign policy changes as different administrations occupy the White House, but there has been consistency in terms of the American intent to work with allies, seen clearly through its membership in NATO and the North American Aerospace Defence Command, known as NORAD.
Trump insists that America’s allies must shoulder their own defence burden, but he seems to distrust their capability to do so in order to enhance American security as well.
The importance of Greenland
Trump, who floated seizing Greenland during his first term, is not the first U.S. policymaker to champion the need for U.S. control of the territory.
From a defence perspective, Greenland is an important Arctic chess piece for the Americans. The ability to deploy ships and aircraft from the territory, as well as use it for surveillance equipment, significantly strengthens U.S. defence.
Since the construction of Pittufik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) in 1953, the U.S. has had a large military presence on Greenland. In addition to conducting missile defence, missile warning and space surveillance missions, the base also houses a lengthy runway and the most northerly deep-water seaport in the world.
Under the terms of the Defense of Greenland Agreement and its subsequent amendment, the U.S. could boost its military presence on the island.
Additionally, Greenland contains rare-Earth minerals that the U.S. needs.
Trump’s incoming national security adviser, Michael Waltz, has said that the focus on Greenland “is about critical minerals,” bolstering Trump’s claim that U.S. control over the territory is necessary “for economic security.”
This may be a response to the mostly unsuccessful Chinese efforts to engage in resource extraction in Greenland. But even so, that’s a flimsy justification for the U.S. annexing Greenland since there’s nothing stopping U.S. companies from exploring extraction rights now.
No need to take over Greenland
The second Trump administration could call on its considerable resources to bolster Greenlandic defence and use the island for military activity to enhance both U.S. security and that of NATO more broadly.
It’s unlikely that there would be any objections to the U.S. building infrastructure on the island, including port facilities and airstrips, that could be used for civilian and military purposes.
Denmark had planned to enhance its military presence in the Arctic prior to Trump’s threats. If those plans are insufficient to the Trump administration, it’s unclear what more Denmark can do to demonstrate that Greenland’s contribution to American defence does not require the U.S. to take formal control of the island.
Evidence that the U.S. lacks faith in its allies is nothing new — in 2013, it was revealed that U.S. intelligence services had been tapping German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone since 2002, highlighting an American willingness to breach trust in service of their own defence.
U.S. criticism of Canada providing insufficient defence capabilities is a familiar refrain, and not unreasonable.
But to threaten annexing territory or, in Canada’s case, make the lives of Canadians so miserable through economic pressure that the country’s politicians are forced to consider territorial concessions is a highly aggressive approach.
Trump’s aggressive rhetoric
This poses major problems for NATO.
First, Trump’s reluctance to rule out the use of military force to annex Greenland violates provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty, which reaffirms members’ UN commitment to “settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means …and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.”
While the prospect of a U.S. military invasion of Denmark is remote, it’s hard to imagine that NATO could still function if it happened.
Second, Trump’s extremist comments runs against NATO’s principle of clarity. Even if his rhetoric is written off as a deliberate “madman” approach to politics or heavy-handed aggressive bargaining, it erodes NATO’s commitment to consistent messaging among its members.
Do Trump’s threats about taking Canada by economic force simply reflect an initial bargaining position, as some have argued? That’s beside the point: it would be foolhardy and naive for Canada to ignore his threats.
An example of the repercussions of those threats is evident in the comments of Andrey Gurulyov, a former Russian military official who has claimed there’s now an opportunity for Russia to take Greenland itself or “make a deal with Trump and split Greenland in two parts.”
Regardless of whether that’s a realistic possibility, the fact that Trump is floating the previously unthinkable prospect of a hostile U.S. takeover of its allies’ territory allows countries long considered common NATO adversaries to capitalize on the chaos for their own gain.
Enmity or amity?
Trump has departed from the NATO and UN principles and agreement not to threaten the use of force against allies.
It’s too extreme for Canada or Denmark to view the U.S. as an enemy in the wake of Trump’s threats, but if this coercion represents friendship, the line between enmity and amity is currently blurred.
Trump may simply be trying to shock Canada and Denmark into increasing their defence spending, accept a greater U.S. military presence and provide the U.S. with more access to their resources. The second Trump administration may ultimately be successful if that’s the goal.
But the costs of taking such an aggressive approach may be that the U.S. loses its ability to position itself as a trustworthy ally and engage productively with allies and partners to support mutually beneficial policy goals.
This would critically undermine NATO’s capability.
Thomas Hughes, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Political Studies, Mount Allison University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
