Copenhagen: A United Front Against Trump’s Ambitions
In a surprising twist, Greenland and Denmark have united to confront U.S. President Donald Trump’s controversial interest in the vast Arctic island, temporarily setting aside a complex history that has defined their relationship for centuries.
For over three hundred years, Greenland has grappled with its status as a Danish colony. While it currently exists as an autonomous territory under Danish governance, the aspirations for independence loom large on the political horizon. The island’s major political parties share a common goal of independence, but they remain divided on the best path to achieve it. Trump’s overtures toward acquiring the territory have galvanized these parties into forming a coalition government as early as March of last year.
Last week, Greenland’s leaders made their stance abundantly clear: they have no interest in Trump’s proposals. After initially pushing hard for the acquisition, Trump backed down following what he termed a “framework deal” concerning Arctic security, brokered with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg.
“Greenlanders still harbor significant grievances regarding Denmark’s reluctance to confront its colonial past,” remarked Ulrik Pram Gad, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies. “However, the pressure from Trump has led a wide spectrum of Greenland’s political landscape to momentarily set aside their independence ambitions.”
The support from Europe has bolstered their resolve, making the relationship with Denmark feel markedly less stifling when seen through the lens of broader alliances. As Greenland’s political factions—though differing on the means to independence—band together, they have prioritized their response to external pressures above all else. The lone dissenting voice belongs to the Naleraq party, which advocates for expedited independence but remains in opposition.
At the peak of escalating tensions, Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen articulated a crucial choice: if pressed to choose between the U.S. and Denmark, Greenland would unequivocally align with Denmark.
Diplomacy in Action
Trump’s recent comments on a NATO framework prompted Denmark and Greenland to reaffirm that decisions concerning the island must be made exclusively by them. Amid the flurry of diplomatic exchanges, the two entities have projected a unified front.
On January 14, Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt found herself in Washington alongside her Danish counterpart, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, engaging in discussions with key U.S. figures, including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Just days later, she was in Brussels, continuing these vital talks with European leaders.
However, beneath this facade of solidarity lies a history marred by colonial scars. Greenland was officially a Danish colony from the early 18th century, transitioning to a territory in 1953, and achieving autonomous status in 1979—a status further solidified in 2009.
“It’s a long and evolving history,” noted Astrid Andersen, a specialist in the field at the Danish Institute for International Studies. “Colonial relationships inherently involve domination, and they are not without injustices.”
A Legacy of Injustice
These injustices are starkly illustrated by troubling events from the past. One such example is a 1951 social experiment in which 22 Inuit children were forcibly removed from their families to suppress their native Greenlandic language in favor of Danish, aiming to mold a Danish-speaking elite. In 2021, compensation of 250,000 crowns (approximately €33,500) was awarded to the surviving individuals.
Another somber chapter unfolded during Denmark’s campaign from the 1960s forward, aimed at reducing the birth rate in Greenland. Thousands of women, including minors—at least 4,000—had intrauterine devices implanted without their consent. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has since issued formal apologies to these women, many of whom subsequently faced infertility, and a compensation process is currently underway.
Furthermore, Denmark’s social services employed controversial psychological evaluations to assess the parenting capabilities of Greenlandic mothers, a practice that was only discontinued last year. A 2022 study highlighted alarming disparities, revealing that children born to Greenlandic families were five to seven times more likely to be placed in care compared to their Danish counterparts.
While the current discourse has temporarily overshadowed these painful issues, Andersen concludes, “For now, there seems to be a collective understanding—anything that divides us pales in comparison to the common adversary, Trump. We must confront this challenge united.”
