The Greenland Crisis

Greenland is not in EU, but maybe that will change (Source: here)

As the most tribalistic of all continents, Europe has always been prone to conflict on account of its myriad of nationalities and cultures. All too often, larger and more powerful nations have bullied and exploited smaller and less powerful ones. In the 20th Century alone, two European conflicts spun into truly global conflagrations, causing untold economic damage and costing the lives of 100 million people.

Following the successful launch of Marshall Aid in 1948, Europe and the United States formed close ties and went on to create the defensive NATO alliance in 1949. The European Economic Community followed in 1957. On 1 November 1993, the European Union (EU) was formed.

These initiatives had one objective in common, namely to prevent future abuses of and among European nations. Barring a few minor exceptions, the interventions were extremely successful, ushering in the longest period of peace in the history of what has historically been the most war-prone region in the world.

The architects of European integration never imagined - nor did they prepare for - a situation where NATO and EU would defend against a threat from the United States.

Yet, under Trump the United States has descended into fascism with respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law all on the wane. Trump's America has also ditched its time-honoured commitment to openness and free trade in favour of ethno-nationalism and protectionism.

Most importantly as far as Europe is concerned, Trump now conducts international relations in accordance with an ethos last seen under the Nazis in Germany and Mussolini's Italy. The strong and the ruthless take advantage of the weak and vulnerable. After all, who is to stop them?

According to Project 2025, the US Far-Right's geopolitical blueprint, the world is destined to split into three regions each controlled by a single superpower. China will control all of Asia, Russia will control Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and the United States will control the Americas, including Greenland.

China does not quite fit this vision of neo-Imperialism. It has designs on Taiwan, but Taiwan hardly constitutes "all of Asia". Besides, it can be argued with some merit that Taiwan belongs to China (for more on China's approach to international relations, see here).

By contrast, Russia fits the Project 2025 vision of the future eminently well. Putin exerts significant influence in Africa and the Middle East. Russia has also invaded Ukraine and undertakes sabotage operations against Europe's internet, airspace, and undersea cables on a daily basis.

With its recent attack on Venezuela and Trump's ongoing threats against Greenland, it is clear that the United States is now fully committed to 'bully rule’ as well (see here).

Europe is woefully unprepared for the clear and present danger the United States now poses (I pointed this out some time ago - see here).

For one, the United States has a controlling stake in NATO, while EU does not even have common fiscal policy, a precursor for an effective European defence union. The United States also exercises strong leverage in global finance & banking as well as trade on account of the pre-eminence of the US dollar and Europe's dependence on export markets in the United States.

Yet, despite these handicaps and Europe's many internal divisions, EU has so far adopted an unusually firm and principled stance regarding Trump's threats against Denmark and Greenland. In the first real show of European unity since the debt crisis of 2011/12, European nations are committing troops to defend Greenland and threatening to suspend a trade agreement with the United States (see here)

The presence of European troops in Greenland is especially important, because the prospect of lethal confrontation between US troops and troops from fellow NATO member states will cause major unease in the US Congress, therefore raising the stakes significantly for Trump.

Europe, it seems, is able to act decisively and in unison when risks are truly existential, even if otherwise not. Maybe that is not such a bad thing given how much damage an unconstrained government can do, the Trump Administration being an excellent case in point.

At this moment in time, we find ourselves in a stand-off not just between the United States and Europe, but also between two powerful competing ideas about how countries should be run: Trump's ethno-nationalism versus EU's notion of block solidarity. It is crucial for the future of Greenland, Europe, and the world beyond who wins the contest.

If Europe caves in to Trump's threats, then NATO may well split and bully nations the world over will have carte blanche to invade their neighbours. Moreover, with Europe split Russia will stand to gain greatly, while disillusionment among European voters with the whole EU project will sky-rocket.

With downside risks that big, it is important that EU politicians also recognise the opportunity presented by the Greenland Crisis. An opportunity to finally inject some momentum in the European project. In a time of surging expansionism, Trump would already have swallowed Denmark and Greenland had it not been for EU and NATO. It is the cooperation of European nations, which is preventing the outrage. So far, as least.

The Greenland Crisis is a forceful reminder why EU was formed. EU needs to hold out against Trump and then build on its achievements to win the day. If EU is able to maintain solidarity with Denmark and Greenland and see off Trump then appreciation of the EU project will increase sharply both within Europe and in third countries like the United Kingdom. In turn, the appreciation can pave the way for renewed efforts to introduce fiscal union, including a common defence policy.

Undersigned visiting family in Greenland in the early 1990s (Source: own photo)

Besides, it is important Europeans do not to lose sight of the broader picture here. The efforts of xenophobes notwithstanding, the world will continue to get smaller due to powerful structural trends, such as population growth, rising GDP per capita, improved communications, and better transport. Political issues will therefore become ever more cross-border in nature over time, be they the environment, terrorism, financial contagion, immigration, or defence.

Cross-border problems can only be resolved with international cooperation, which is why the future belongs to blocks of nations rather than individual nation states (see here). Seen in this light, Trump's descent into ethno-nationalism is, as Americans will discover over the next few years, a major set-back for the United States.

While effective governance at global level is still way out of reach (the United Nations is deeply ineffective), the best chance of actually tackling a raft of global problems - rather than just blaming them on scapegoats as Trump does - is for like-minded nations to work much more closely together. This is why European integration, despite the pessimism that surrounds the project, is the right idea for the future of Europe. A win for Europe will be a powerful demonstration of the value of larger regional blocks not just in Europe, but in general. It will also be a major set-back for nationalism across the globe. A potential turning point, even.

The End