THE situation in Greenland has assumed certain unpredictability. Even as United States President Mr. Donald Trump insists that the US needs the vast landmass now under sovereign control of Denmark for extraction of its mineral resources, America’s allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) appear determined to oppose Washington’s proposed moves. Many European countries have begun sending their troops -- on different missions -- to Greenland, indicating possible hostilities. Many European leaders have stressed that NATO’s existence could be in trouble if the US really grabs control of Greenland. Yet, given the nature of NATO politics and its overall global positioning, it is difficult to make any definitive observations about what may or may not happen in Greenland. The situation may take any turn -- left or right -- in the coming months, well beyond prediction as per the nuances of international realpolitik.

 

The argument that President Mr. Donald Trump has put forth for his eyeing of Greenland may find some takers among European countries. The US President has said reportedly, “... If we don’t go in, Russia is going to go in and China is going to go in. And there is not a thing Denmark can do about it, but we can do everything about it”. If the US is able to raise the Russian or Chinese scare to a high pitch, then some European countries may feel compelled to think favourably about the American agenda about Greenland. In that case, the NATO opinion may get divided -- to whatever extent. The American entry into Greenland may happen through that political gap -- naturally with least trouble. Yet, the Greenland situation is still very fluid and no firm prediction or futuristic observation can be made at this stage. For the world, the US desire to grab Greenland would always be an expression of America’s hard-driving one-up-manship -- which most countries resent but cannot do much to prevent it.

 

Every development around Greenland, thus, will have a tinge of high-octane American greed to corner as many of global resources as possible. It is reflected in each of Mr. Donald Trump’s moves of late -- including one in Pakistan whose rulers are selling the idea that some of its regions are rich in Rare Earth Minerals. For Mr. Trump, the idea is to establish American hegemony on every possible corner of the planet where some critical resources could be cornered. Some European countries that have sent in their troops into Greenland have done so in a very restricted manner -- more for the stated purpose of assessment of what can happen if at all the US may want to do a great gate-crash. Thanks to the NATO alliance, a direct conflict in military terms may not take place at least initially in Greenland -- so much so that Denmark may have to start looking for sincere friends among its European neighbours. For the world geopolitical experts, this situation has every possible element of uncertainty and unpredictability.

 

Of course, thanks to the by-now infamous impatience of Mr. Donald Trump, American diplomatic narrative built carefully over decades appears to have got shattered to a big extent. Yet, some American scholars of international affairs and geopolitics may find some sensible substance in Mr. Trump’s positioning on some issues. After all, Mr. Trump also has to address the domestic audience that will face mid-term elections in the next few months. The outcome of those polls may even alter the political texture of America’s national politics -- so much so that the Democrats -- if they win the mid-term hands down -- may push for Mr. Donald Trump’s ouster through impeachment. Most of the President’s recent moves appear to have been driven by that considered possibility (which Mr. Trump had personally verbalised in one of his speeches to Republican lawmakers recently). What may happen in Greenland, thus, may have its roots in the domestic affairs of the United States of America.