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.”
Advertisement – scroll to continue reading
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.”
