Trump's earlier comments about Greenland caused international irritation. Following his Davos speech, the question of whether the US ever seriously considered military action has arisen once again. A historical review shows that US security policy has been institutionally anchored in Greenland since World War II. In an interview, Dick Harrison explains why Trump's statements should be understood less as a real military threat, and discusses how colonial structures, demographic factors and geopolitical interests have shaped Greenland's current position between Denmark, the US and the international community.

After President Trump’s speech in Davos, do you think that the risk of a U.S. attack on Greenland has been eliminated?

Dick Harrison: Yes, and I seriously doubt that Trump ever actually planned an invasion of a territory belonging to a friendly ally. Threats and exaggerations are essential to his style of leadership – the “madman tactic” – and they should not always be taken literally. Trump was, and still is, trying to manipulate the Danes into giving him as much influence over Greenland as possible, but by now, he has realised that threats of military action are counterproductive.

Greenland vs. USA 

How would you describe the historical relationship between Greenland and the United States?

Harrison: Ever since World War 2, Greenland has been firmly attached to the US sphere of military influence. During the Cold War, the Americans were allowed to establish big military bases in Greenland, for example the famous Thule base. Denmark never tried to stop this; from a NATO perspective, and from a Danish perspective, US military presence in Greenland was non-controversial. If Trump simply wants to strengthen the US forces in Greenland, he can do so immediately, with full approval from the Danish government. But Trump wants far more than this. His bid for Greenland is not motivated by military need and military strategic thinking. He wants the vast economic resources hidden under the ice.

Trump wants the vast economic resources hidden under the ice.

What historical developments explain why Greenland never became fully independent?

Harrison: If Greenland had had more people, it would have become independent when Iceland became independent, or during the global era of de-colonisation in the 1950s and 1960s. But the Greenlanders are few – 55.000 people. Economic assistance and military protection from the so-called motherland (or, as Trump would have it, the USA) enabled Greenlanders to live in a modern welfare state.

Denmark's role as Greenland's ‘mother country’ is still controversial.

Harrison: During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Danish authorities treated Greenland as a colony, much in the same way as other European colonial powers treated the colonial territories in Asia and Africa. This has created an ambiguous political climate: the Greenlanders have both needed Denmark for economic purposes and felt exploited and oppressed by Denmark. However, during the past decades, the Danish government has tried to set things straight by giving Greenland a significant amount of autonomy.

Greenland's history 

How did early Viking settlements shape later claims to Greenland?

Harrison: In reality, the Scandinavian settlements appear to have ceased to exist in the fifteenth century. Nobody knows what happened to them. However, the Scandinavian monarchy never ceased to claim overlordship. In 1397, the union between Sweden (including Finland), Denmark and Norway (including Iceland, Greenland and the Faroe, Shetland and Orkney islands) was officially proclaimed during a coronation meeting in Kalmar (hence the “Kalmar Union”), and the late medieval kings continued to regard Greenland as a part of their dominion. When the Danish kings began the process of recolonising Greenland in the eighteenth century, the medieval claims were reinforced.

Why was Greenland originally associated more with Norway than with Denmark?

Harrison: In the late tenth century, Greenland was colonised from Iceland, which had previously been colonised from Norway. That is, both islands were colonised by Norwegian settlers. (In about 1000, expeditions from Greenland made a couple of attempts at colonising Newfoundland as well, but the attempts failed.) Initially, the settlements in Iceland and Greenland were independent, but in the 1260s, the Norwegian monarchy intervened and was recognised as supreme authority in both islands. When Norway joined the Kalmar Union, Iceland and Greenland were regarded as parts of the Norwegian kingdom. However, Norway was seriously weakened in the late Middle Ages and lost its status as a sovereign nation in the 1530s. It became a part of the kingdom of Denmark. As a consequence, the Norwegian North Atlantic dependencies became politically Danish.

From the 19th century until today 

Why did Norway maintain territorial claims to Greenland for so long?

Harrison: Scandinavia was politically transformed during the Napoleonic wars. Sweden lost Finland to Russia in 1809 but was compensated with Norway in 1814, since Denmark had been one of Napoleon’s closest allies and suffered defeat when the French emperor fell from power. After a brief war between Sweden and Norway in the same year, the Swedish king was recognised as king of Norway, but the Norwegians were allowed to keep their constitution. During the era of the Swedish-Norwegian union, Norwegian nationalism developed into a strong force, and the Norwegian nationalists wanted to regain their medieval North Atlantic empire (which Denmark had been allowed to keep in the peace treaties of 1814). After 1905, when the Swedish-Norwegian union was dissolved, this political tendency grew increasingly apparent. During the 1920s and the 1930s, Norway claimed overlordship over several Arctic and Antarctic islands, which are still internationally recognised as Norwegian territories (Bouvet Island, Peter I’s Island, Svalbard, Jan Mayen, etc.). In the 1930s, Norway also tried to take Eastern Greenland from Denmark, but the attempt failed, since the international community supported the Danish claims.