Europe stands at a precipice. Following the US military operation in Venezuela, President Donald Trump and his close advisers have reiterated that Greenland — at present an autonomous territory of Denmark — will be next.
"We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it," Trump told reporters this week. "Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days."
The threat is not mere hyperbole. Trump has appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, who publicly supports US annexation, as special envoy to Greenland.
And Katie Miller, wife of top Trump adviser Stephen Miller, recently posted an image of Greenland in US flag colours with the caption "SOON".
These are not random provocations but co-ordinated pressure tactics against a sovereign territory.
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen responded by saying: "That’s enough now. No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation."
Danish leaders have warned a US attack on Greenland would signal "the end of Nato" and of post-World War 2 war security.
Threats against Nato members (such as Denmark) could also embolden Russia even more and lead to more uncertainty for Europe.
So why are European leaders not more forcefully calling out Trump’s threats against Greenland — as well as his government’s shocking intervention in Venezuela? And what’s at stake?
Nato’s article 5 commits members to treat an attack on one as an attack on all. If the US were to attack Greenland, Denmark would expect Nato’s collective defence mechanisms to activate against the US.
European leaders have been forced to confront a reality they hoped to avoid: the US, Nato’s founding member, may become the alliance’s gravest threat. But so far, the response across the continent to both the Greenland threats and the US’ actions in Venezuela has been feeble and confused. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer admitted he wanted to speak to President Trump before he condemned the attacks, epitomising Europe’s subordination. A letter signed by the Danish prime minister and the leaders of France, Germany, Spain, the UK, Italy and Poland has affirmed only Greenland and Denmark should determine Greenland’s future. The European Union has pledged to defend members’ territorial integrity.
And such vague declarations about Greenland ring hollow when the same governments hesitate to condemn US violations of international law in Venezuela.
When European leaders respond so cautiously to the Venezuela operation — stressing respect for international law while avoiding direct criticism of Washington — their principles are exposed as highly selective.
If the United States annexes Greenland, Denmark would face an existential choice: accept the violation and remain in a compromised Nato or leave an alliance that no longer protects its members. All other members would face the same choice. The Nato alliance cannot function if its members no longer share fundamental values about sovereignty and law. Trump has forced Europe to confront whether it will defend these principles universally or accept a world where might makes right. Europe faces a parallel dilemma to the crisis of 1938’s Munich agreement, an appeasement that ultimately invited more aggression, i.e. how to respond when its most powerful ally directly threatens an EU and Nato member state. Europe is edging towards another Munich agreement moment, with concessions dressed up as stability and peace a euphemism for appeasement. The events in the coming weeks will largely determine the very future of Europe. The continent faces a choice between political expediency or rules-based international order built on the prohibition of aggressive war, respect for sovereignty and collective security.
Will its leaders be prepared to confront their own hypocrisy or timidly accept the erosion of the rules they claim to defend? — conversation.com
■ Shannon Brincat is a senior lecturer in politics and international relations at the University of the Sunshine Coast; Juan Zahir Naranjo Caceres is a PhD candidate, in political science, international relations and constitutional law at the University of the Sunshine Coast.
