Trump and Greenland: An Unprecedented Political Tension with European Leaders

Dr. Aziz Ahmad Barez

Introduction

Greenland, the world’s largest island with an area exceeding two million square kilometers, is a semi-autonomous territory under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark. It has been considered part of Denmark since 1953, but under the Self-Government Act of 2009, it enjoys extensive powers over internal affairs such as education, health, and the exploitation of natural resources. However, foreign policy, defense, and monetary matters remain under the control of the Danish government.(۱) Greenland’s population is approximately 56,000, predominantly Inuit, and its economy relies primarily on fishing, tourism, and mining. The island’s strategic location in the Arctic and its abundant mineral resources give it significant geopolitical importance, yet its sovereignty, in accordance with international law—including the United Nations Charter—belongs to Denmark.(۲)

1. Differences in U.S. Foreign Policy Compared to Trump’s Unstable Approach? Have U.S. Foreign Policy Institutions Become Ineffective? What Role Do They Play in U.S. Foreign Policy?

U.S. foreign policy, as the world’s leading economic and military power, has traditionally been grounded in national interests, multilateralism, strategic alliances such as NATO, and commitment to international law. This approach is shaped by institutions like the Department of State, the National Security Council, and the CIA, which play a key role in formulating and implementing foreign policy. These bodies operate based on long-term analyses rooted in reliable data, national interests, and international cooperation, often serving as a counterbalance to personal decisions by presidents.

In contrast, President Trump’s approach during his second term reflects a transactional and unilateral style, viewing foreign policy as an economic tool to achieve short-term objectives. For example, Trump has described Greenland as a “necessity for U.S. national security” and threatened European countries with a 10% tariff (increasing to 25%) on imports from eight European nations to pressure Denmark into selling it.(۳) This differs markedly from traditional U.S. foreign policy, which emphasizes collective diplomacy and respect for national sovereignty rather than direct economic pressure on allies.

A clear example of this instability is Trump’s repeated claims about returning to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. During his first term (2019), Trump initiated the Doha Agreement negotiations with the Taliban, leading to the complete U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021—including the abandonment of Bagram, the largest U.S.-operated air base in the region. But in 2025, Trump repeatedly stated that “we are working to regain Bagram” and even threatened that “if the Taliban does not return Bagram, bad things will happen”.(۴) These claims were rejected by the Taliban. Such political maneuvers highlight Trump’s inconsistency with U.S. foreign policy institutions, as the State Department and National Security Council, based on prior agreements, withdrew from Afghanistan and emphasized no military return. These shifts have created instability in U.S. foreign policy, and actions such as sending $40 million in cash to the Taliban and engaging in security cooperation with this anti-human and lawless group have damaged America’s global credibility. But many believe that U.S. foreign policy institutions have not become “ineffective.” They continue to play an active role. The State Department has participated in negotiations with Europe to reduce tensions, and the National Security Council has provided security analyses on the Arctic. Even some Republican members of Congress, such as Don Bacon, have condemned Trump’s actions and stressed the importance of preserving alliances.(۵) These institutions can moderate presidential decisions, but ultimate executive power rests with Trump, which sometimes leads to instability. Ultimately, their role in maintaining continuity in U.S. foreign policy remains vital, though during Trump’s tenure, they have often been placed in a defensive position to mitigate the damage from his decisions.

2. Europe as America’s Primary Ally Plays an Influential Role in the NATO Framework. If Tensions Continue, Will Trump and Europe Back Down, or Will This Tension Turn into Full Confrontation?

Europe, as America’s main ally within NATO, plays a key role in Western collective security, joint military operations, and addressing global threats such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and climate change. NATO is built on the principle of collective defense (Article 5), with Europe contributing over 70% of the alliance’s non-U.S. budget, making Europe’s share essential to this partnership.(۶)

European Union and British leaders have widely reacted to Trump’s threats, emphasizing solidarity and the preservation of sovereignty.

Key excerpts from their statements include:

• Keir Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom: “Imposing tariffs on allies to pursue NATO’s collective security is completely wrong. The future of Greenland belongs solely to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. Any decision about Greenland’s future status belongs only to the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. This is a fundamental right, and we will support it.”(۷)

• Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Denmark: “Europe will not be blackmailed. Europe will not surrender. We want to cooperate, and it is not us seeking conflict. I am pleased with the consistent messages from across the continent: Europe will not be blackmailed.”(۸)

• Emmanuel Macron, President of France: “The tariff threat is unacceptable. No intimidation or threat will affect us—not in Ukraine, not in Greenland, not anywhere else in the world. If necessary, Europeans will respond in a united and coordinated maer. We will know how to preserve Europe’s sovereignty.”(۹)

• Jonas Gahr Støre, Prime Minister of Norway: “We believe everyone should work to reduce tensions—there is much happening around us that requires us to stand together.” He expressed Norway’s opposition to the tariffs, stating: “Norway’s position on Greenland is clear. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Threats have no place among allies.” Støre proposed a direct phone conversation with Trump to ease tensions but emphasized Denmark’s sovereignty.

This stance reflects Norway’s approach as a NATO member, focusing on diplomacy, the transatlantic alliance, and de-escalation while firmly defending allied sovereignty.

• Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission: “The European Union stands with Denmark and the people of Greenland. Tariff threats weaken transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral. Europe will remain united, coordinated, and committed to preserving its sovereignty.”(۱۰)

• Antonio Costa, President of the European Council: “Due to the significance of recent developments, I will convene an extraordinary meeting of the European Council in the coming days. The European Union stands with Denmark and the people of Greenland. Tariff threats weaken the transatlantic alliance and carry the risk of a dangerous downward spiral.”(۱۱)

If tensions over Greenland persist, two likely scenarios emerge:

1. De-escalation by both sides: Trump may perceive concessions as a win, viewing international politics and relations through an economic lens. In this scenario, Europe could reduce tensions through diplomatic negotiations (e.g., proposing enhanced joint Arctic security without altering sovereignty), allowing Trump to frame it as an economic victory. European leaders have emphasized “calm dialogue” and “Western unity.”(۱۲)

2. Full confrontation: If Trump imposes the tariffs, Europe may respond with retaliatory tariffs (e.g., targeting U.S. exports worth $107 billion), leading to a trade war. Alternatively, if Europe pursues a strategic trade partnership with China, China could become the world’s leading economy within the first two years of such a partnership. In this game, the main losers would be America and Europe. This scenario would not only weaken NATO but could lead to its collapse, disrupting the current global order and security.

Denmark has deployed additional forces to Greenland, and the European Union is holding an emergency meeting to discuss “anti-coercion mechanisms,” signaling readiness for confrontation.(۱۳) Ultimately, full confrontation could lead to a “divorce” in the transatlantic alliance, though Europe has so far focused on “unity” and “support for Denmark” to prevent escalation.

3. The United Nations Charter Prohibits the Occupation of Countries. This Is Why America, Europe, and the World Support Ukraine Against Russia’s Occupation. If Such an Occupation Were Carried Out by America or Europe, What Difference Would It Make from the Occupation of Ukraine?

The United Nations Charter (Chapter I, Article 2(4)) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This fundamental principle underpins global support for Ukraine against Russia’s occupation, where the United States, Europe, and the United Nations have imposed sanctions and provided military aid to preserve the international order.(۱۴)

If the United States or Europe were to undertake a similar action—such as pressuring for control over Greenland—there would be no fundamental difference from Russia’s occupation of Ukraine, as both would violate national sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of an independent state. The only difference lies in the actors: Russia has been condemned as the “aggressor,” but if the United States (through tariff threats or military pressure) seeks to “buy” or control Greenland, the act remains unlawful without the genuine consent of Greenland’s people.(۱۵)

Such conduct would severely damage the international order and the credibility of the United Nations and its Security Council, pushing this authoritative body toward irrelevance and potential collapse. The Security Council (comprising the United States, United Kingdom, China, France, and Russia) is responsible for maintaining global peace and security, and a violation by one permanent member creates perceptions of “double standards.” This could lead to increased global conflicts and widespread breaches of the UN Charter, such as encouraging China to take similar actions in Taiwan. European leaders have opposed Trump’s statements, describing them as an “attack on European sovereignty,” and the United Nations might issue a condemning resolution—though the United States could veto it! Such actions severely undermine the credibility of international law and the Security Council.(۱۶) Ultimately, this challenges the principle of equality among nations and could lead to the erosion of trust in international institutions.

Conclusion

Based on the above arguments, the tension over Greenland is a vivid example of the challenges international law faces against unilateral U.S. approaches. The UN Charter and NATO principles emphasize respect for sovereignty, collective diplomacy, and the avoidance of economic or military pressure to alter borders. Objectively, preserving the global order requires commitment from all parties—including the United States and Europe—to secure shared interests, such as Arctic security, without violating national rights. Otherwise, damage to alliances will not only weaken Europe and America but also place the entire international system at risk.

References

(۱) الجزیره. “Greenland: A semi-autonomous Danish territory” (به‌روز رسانی ۲۰۲۶).

(۲) سازمان ملل متحد. منشور سازمان ملل متحد، فصل ۲، ماده ۴.

(۳) رویترز. “Trump threatens tariffs over Greenland” (ژانویه ۲۰۲۶).

(۴) الجزیره. “Afghanistan’s Bagram airbase: Why is Trump desperate to take it back?” (۲۹ سپتامبر ۲۰۲۵).

(۵) نیویورک تایمز. “European Allies Mull Retaliation Over Trump’s Greenland Threats” (۱۹ ژانویه ۲۰۲۶).

(۶) ناتو. گزارش بودجه و ساختار ناتو (۲۰۲۶).

(۷) بی‌بی‌سی. “Starmer condemns tariffs as ‘completely wrong’” (۱۹ ژانویه ۲۰۲۶).

(۸) بی‌بی‌سی. “‘Europe won’t be blackmailed,’ Danish PM says” (۱۸ ژانویه ۲۰۲۶).

(۹) رویترز. “Macron says Trump tariff threat over Greenland unacceptable” (۱۷ ژانویه ۲۰۲۶).

(۱۰) ای‌بی‌سی نیوز. “Europe ‘united’ in face of Trump’s Greenland threats” (۱۹ ژانویه ۲۰۲۶).

(۱۱) سی‌ان‌ان. “European Council President Antonio Costa aounces extraordinary meeting” (۱۸ ژانویه ۲۰۲۶).

(۱۲) ان‌پی‌آر. “European leaders warn Trump’s Greenland tariffs threaten ‘dangerous downward spiral’” (۱۸ ژانویه ۲۰۲۶).

(۱۳) رویترز. “EU scrambles to avert Trump Greenland tariffs, prepares retaliation” (۱۸ ژانویه ۲۰۲۶).

(۱۴) سازمان ملل متحد. قطعنامه‌های مربوط به اوکراین (۲۰۲۲–۲۰۲۶).

(۱۵) گاردین. “European leaders rally behind Greenland” (ژانویه ۲۰۲۶).

(۱۶) سی‌ان‌ان. “A stued Europe gathers to respond after Trump increases pressure over Greenland” (۱۸ ژانویه ۲۰۲۶).

سوالات متداول

چرا Trump and Greenland: An Unprecedented Political Tension with European Leaders                  اند اهمیت دارد؟

این موضوع به دلیل اطلاعات و کاربردهای مرتبط، مورد توجه کاربران قرار گرفته است.

آخرین اطلاعات درباره greenland چیست؟

جدیدترین اطلاعات و تغییرات مربوط به greenland در این گزارش ارائه شده است.

مهم‌ترین نکات درباره europe چیست؟

جزئیات مهم و نکات قابل توجه درباره europe در متن مقاله بررسی شده است.