When President Trump made comments about annexing Greenland in the first few months of his second term, many people dismissed his remarks as mere political posturing. But after the U.S.’s military operation in Venezuela, which resulted in the capture of Nicolás Maduro and questions about the U.S. “running” the South American country, Trump has once again talked about taking control of Greenland — and this time, he seems serious.
The president has repeatedly asserted that the U.S. needs the territory for “national security purposes,” and on Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the White House is considering “a range of options" to secure the space, including “utilizing the U.S. military.”
We tapped Dafydd Townley, Ph.D., a senior teaching fellow in international security at England's University of Portsmouth, who's been researching American politics and national security for over a decade, to discuss the severity of such a move. According to Dr. Townley, the threats are “very, very concerning.” If Trump does follow through, his actions would have implications for Greenland, the U.S., and NATO — and its impact could be felt for years to come.
Katie Couric Media: First, what was your reaction to the U.S. military action in Venezuela over the weekend?
Dr. Dafydd Townley: I'd like to say I was surprised, but honestly, I wasn't. Certainly, regime change has been in the cards since the buildup of military forces in the Caribbean. Even though Trump had said early on that regime change was not part of the plan, it became quite evident as time wore on that it was becoming part of the plan.
My concern is that this flies in the face of international law. But this move is not unique in American history. We had the Panama invasion in 1989. If we go back to the 19th century and the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S.'s role as the policeman of the Americas has been evident. But this was a significant departure from the norms that we've expected of American political behavior over the last 30 years.
How did you feel about Trump again saying the U.S. will take control of Greenland?
If you'd asked me this question six months ago, I would've probably said, “This is just speculative. They're testing the waters and trying to find out what they can gain from the situation.” But the Maduro arrest has obviously made us reassess these threats. They are no longer hot air; you have to believe this is a serious proposition from the United States.
Trump has abandoned any idea of using soft power [like diplomacy] as a way for the United States to achieve its strategic objectives. What we're seeing now is Trump reverting simply to hard power coercion: “Do this or else.”
Why is the Trump administration so focused on Greenland?
While we see these threats as being very, very concerning — and they have been put down quite quickly by leaders across the Atlantic — Trump is absolutely correct in stating that the Arctic region is a place of competition, and it will be for the next 50 to 60 years. As climate change takes effect, shipping lanes open up, and as mineral deposits become suddenly available in the northern regions of the Arctic, that is going to be a heavily contested state. Trump has been more active in this region than previous presidents have been.
The consensus — including from former National Security adviser John Bolton — seems to be that if the U.S. were to try to seize Greenland, the other NATO members wouldn't defend it. Why not?
First of all, any military defense of Greenland couldn’t be a NATO operation because all NATO strategic decisions have to be unanimous, and the United States would veto it. Of course, it's unprecedented for one NATO member to go against another.
Stephen Miller's comment that nobody's going to go to war with the United States over Greenland is probably correct, reluctant as I am to agree with Stephen Miller. Number one, [intervening is] probably not strategically significant enough at this moment in time for Europe. Two, I don't think there's the political capital within those nations to do that.
Let’s say the U.S. does use military force to acquire Greenland — what would that mean for NATO?
I think that's the end of NATO — or at least, the United States wouldn't be a part of it. I think we'll see a European security force that will essentially replace NATO.
Furthermore, if Trump does put military forces into Greenland, I think that will probably cause irreparable damage to European-U.S. relations, and that is going to have generational consequences — not just for the next three years.
