In the spring of 2019, in the Danish Parliament (Folketing), while discussing the retirement of an elderly circus elephant, the then Prime Minister, Ms. Mette Frederiksen, could not contain her laughter. She remarked humorously, "I can't believe we are discussing something like this here."
This moment, which quickly resonated in Danish and international media, became for many a symbol of the high level of welfare and stability in the country. Such a concern in parliament indicated how calm and well-ordered Denmark had become.
At first glance, the story of the elephant might seem sweet and even admirable; but behind this pleasant image lies a profoundly bitter message: nothing in the arena of global politics is as simple as it appears.
In a world where geopolitical alignments are becoming increasingly complex, any neglect or oversimplification can lead to deep and dangerous fissures in countries' foreign policies and national interests.
Within the framework of realism theory, one of the dominant approaches in international relations, states must pay fundamental attention to the components of power and security to ensure their survival and enhance their position.
Denmark, a small country that has gained influence beyond its geopolitical weight due to its ownership of Greenland, is now facing the challenge of preserving this strategic asset. Greenland, with its rich natural resources, prime location in the Arctic region, and proximity to North America, has rapidly become a focal point of competition among superpowers.
However, it seems that Copenhagen, thus far, absorbed in domestic concerns such as social welfare and the rights of specific groups, has failed to fully grasp the requirements and exigencies of the global power order concerning this strategic asset.
Greenland possesses rare mineral resources vital for advanced industries and the new energy sector. Its geographical location is also of strategic importance, serving as a natural bridge between North America and Europe and playing a decisive role in security equations. The importance of this location has been further amplified by the opening of new sea routes due to the melting of polar ice.
The United States' attention to Greenland has a long history. This interest began with Harry Truman's proposal in 1946 to purchase the island for $100 million and continued until Donald Trump's statements in 2019, emphasizing the priority of buying it in the interest of American "national security."
Denmark's reaction to Trump's proposal, which included Prime Minister Frederiksen's description of it as "absurd," seemed to be based on a kind of denial. However, this reaction ignored a fundamental truth in the realm of international relations: the fact that major powers, even long-standing allies, act primarily out of their national interests, not solely based on goodwill.
The United States has increased its influence in Greenland by utilizing soft and hard power tools. The Thule Air Base, a legacy of the Cold War, is still a key element of America's missile defense system in the Arctic. American investments in Greenland's infrastructure and mineral projects, including airport financing, demonstrate a kind of gradual influence to which Denmark has not yet shown an effective response.
Meanwhile, in addition to external threats, Denmark has also shown shortcomings on the domestic front that threaten its long-term cohesion with Greenland. Insufficient development policies, a lack of planning for internal migration from Denmark to Greenland, and a failure to create a shared sense of identity between the people of Denmark and the residents of Greenland have contributed to structural gaps. In this fragile situation, analysts speculate that Russia and the United States (in the shadow of global tensions) may move toward a tacit agreement on the status of Greenland. Vladimir Putin recently stated that the United States' claim to Greenland has historical roots and is not related to Russia, reinforcing the possibility of a behind-the-scenes agreement.
On the other hand, Trump has increased pressure on Europe and NATO. Europeans are concerned about the integrity of their transatlantic alliance with America, and the Ukraine war reinforces this concern. This situation could create a dynamic trading or blackmailing environment for America. At a minimum, Europe may show less opposition to the United States' acquisition of Greenland.
Copenhagen's lack of prioritization of strategic issues stems from a sense of satisfaction derived from the post-Cold War order. As a member of NATO and with a large welfare state, Denmark has generally continued to exist under America's security umbrella while portraying itself as a progressive and consensus-oriented nation. While this approach has been successful in the realm of soft power, it has weakened the sensitivity and agility of the country's foreign policy in the face of geopolitical competition.
The elephant story symbolizes a political culture that tends to prioritize domestic concerns, such as animal welfare or environmental policies, over geopolitical considerations. However, this situation is increasingly challenging in the case of Greenland. Copenhagen's relationship with the autonomous government of Greenland is fragile, with a legacy of colonial paternalism and increasing tensions over independence. While government subsidies play a significant role in Greenland's economy, the Danish government has been slow to respond to local demands or invest in strategic infrastructure.
Two factors facilitate the potential annexation of Greenland to the United States: first, the American federal structure, which easily allows for the annexation of new territories; and second, the relatively small population of autonomous Greenland.
In contrast to this situation, the Danish political system, which is based on liberal values, seems too passive or lacking the necessary decisiveness in the face of such a major strategic challenge.
Perhaps it is late for Denmark, but to prevent unfavorable consequences, Copenhagen must revise its policies based on the logic of realism. This revision necessitates taking specific steps:
- Denmark should respond to Greenland's political and economic demands by adopting a fully participatory approach, and alongside this, strengthen the cultural and security ties between the two sides.
- The development of a comprehensive strategy for the Arctic region, with a serious focus on strengthening military and civilian infrastructure, is an unavoidable necessity.
- Denmark must actively utilize its membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to obtain explicit and clear guarantees from the United States regarding the preservation of its territorial integrity, especially in relation to Greenland.
Denmark's current challenge regarding Greenland serves as an important lesson: the survival of states depends on their ability to create a smart balance between domestic and foreign affairs.
In particular, neglecting the hard realities of power in the international system can have severe consequences; it may even lead to opportunism and covetousness from long-standing allies.
Elaheh Sadat Mousavinejad, Expert at the Center for Political and International Studies
(The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)