President Donald Trump has not yet invaded a NATO ally. But the fact that he is keeping his options open, however unlikely he seems to follow through, undermines progress he has made on the global stage over the past year.
On Tuesday, seven European heads of state issued a joint statement denouncing U.S. designs on Demark’s semiautonomous territory. “Greenland belongs to its people,” they said. Europeans are prone to overwrought worries about Trump, but the dynamic has shifted since U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Saturday.
Almost immediately after the dictator was removed from the country, an emboldened Trump expressed a renewed interest in making a play for Greenland. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday that Trump would prefer to purchase the territory from Denmark, but “utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.” He had blustered about forcibly taking Greenland early in his presidency, and Denmark doesn’t appreciate that the sentiment has returned.
“If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily,” Denmark Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said, “then everything stops.” Indeed, the purpose of NATO is to ensure members protect each other from invasion, and the alliance would end if its most powerful member invaded a weaker one. It’s one thing to threaten not to come to a country’s defense if it’s freeloaded off the alliance; it’s something else entirely to be the one attacking.
Trump isn’t wrong about Greenland’s strategic importance. Arctic waterways are increasingly navigable, and the country has massive deposits of rare-earth minerals, alongside other natural resources. The White House also says acquiring Greenland is “vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region,” but the U.S. already has a military base on Greenland. Denmark has expressed a willingness to negotiate deals for mining rare-earth minerals, but Trump apparently hopes to capitalize on Copenhagen’s anxiety to extract maximum concessions.
The president may believe he can scare Denmark into thinking he’s just crazy enough to take Greenland so that they become willing to sell it. But even hinting at the use of force against a country the U.S. has a treaty obligation to defend has major costs and will undermine attempts to secure Denmark’s cooperation on other issues, including competition with China.
Deliberately wrecking the alliance would embolden a revanchist Russia and delight China, as well as Iran and the successors to Maduro currently running Venezuela. It’s a particularly strange time to taunt U.S. allies because, as Trump acknowledges, the members of the alliance have taken on a bigger financial burden in defending Ukraine and agreed to spend much more on their own militaries.
Earlier this year, Trump dropped the Greenland threats when the downsides became clearer, and he’ll probably do the same soon enough. The question is how much damage gets done to NATO before that happens. The world would be a better place if he focused his energy on Cuba rather than Greenland.
The post Greenland isn’t worth destroying NATO over appeared first on Washington Post.
