European leaders should support Trump on Greenland
Conflict within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) over Greenland is rather unfortunate as it is bond to divert attention from a disturbing fact-both China and Russia are eying its vast resources. It is to the credit of United States President Donald Trump that he brought attention of his country, other western nations, and the entire world to the impending menace; sadly, his actions to preclude Chinese or Russian influence over the mostly ice-covered Greenland, which is rich in natural resources, including critical minerals, are being thwarted by European leaders who seem to have developed some kind of antipathy towards the US President. So Trump announced tariffs on the eight allies, who are strongly opposed to his proposed takeover of Greenland, whose sovereign is the Kingdom of Denmark. He is clear that he will take control of the island “the easy way” or “the hard way. US officials point out that with 1.5 million tons of rare earth mineral reserves, Greenland cannot be allowed to become the playground of the wannabe hegemons, China and Russia. The US logic, according to geopolitics analyst and bestselling author Tim Marshall, is “rooted in energy security, future-proofing supply chains (especially minerals) and in the strategic denial of competitors.”
The logic is impeccable. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, however, doesn’t believe so; he finds the US’ move “completely wrong.” French President Emmanuel Macron echoes a similar sentiment and states that Trump’s actions are “unacceptable.” The comments were in response to Trump’s additional 10 per cent tariff on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland. Set to become effective on February 1, it could climb to 25 per cent. Trump has made his plans for the takeover of Greenland evident a year back. Before he became the United States ambassador to the United Nations last May, Michael Waltz said in his capacity as national security advisor, “This is about critical minerals. This is about natural resources.” It is quite astonishing that even the European allies of the United States are bickering with Trump over the issue; they must realize that by doing so, they are supporting dangerous hegemons.
By opposing Washington so vocally and publicly, they may believe that they are defending the principles of sovereignty and international law, but principles divorced from power and strategy can quickly become empty slogans. At any rate, China and Russia have no respect for such lofty principles. If western dithering and internal squabbles create an opening for China or Russia to deepen their influence in Greenland—through investment, debt, political leverage or military presence—the consequences will be felt far beyond the Arctic. It would weaken NATO’s northern flank, compromise western access to critical resources, and hand strategic advantages to powers that have little respect for the very norms Europe claims to uphold. Moreover, there is a certain irony in Europe’s posture. Many of the same leaders who now recoil at Trump’s bluntness have repeatedly warned about the dangers of overdependence on Russia for energy or on China for manufacturing and rare earths. The painful lessons of gas dependency exposed by the Ukraine war should still be fresh in their minds. Greenland represents an opportunity to avoid repeating such mistakes, to secure alternative sources of critical materials within the Western strategic ecosystem. Squandering that opportunity out of political spite or transatlantic pique would be deeply irresponsible.
