Opinion Donald Trump’s Greenland dream puts Europe’s sovereignty on trial
There are suggestions to invoke the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) — often described as the EU’s “trade bazooka” — which is designed to penalise countries that use market access as a tool of geopolitical coercion
Europeans are also aware that the standoff could lead the United States to reduce or withdraw its support for Ukraine (AP Photo) The issue of Greenland, a self-ruling Danish territory, has suddenly emerged as a major challenge to European sovereignty, security, territorial integrity, and transatlantic ties. The issue now risks derailing the EU–United States trade deal and tearing apart an already fragile NATO alliance. Last night at Davos, European leaders lined up to condemn Donald Trump’s “new colonialism”.
In recent years, almost every discussion on European security among European policymakers has begun and ended with Ukraine. More recently, they have expressed growing concern about China and the escalating Trump tariffs. The Greenland standoff with the United States has suddenly pushed all other discussions into the background.
Although the transatlantic alliance has been under serious strain for some time, both the UK and the European Union were among the first to finalise trade deals with the Trump administration. This was despite the EU’s continued emphasis on the virtues of multilateralism in its global messaging. In practice, the EU was among the first to pursue a bilateral trade deal with the United States. In contrast, China continues to maintain higher baseline tariffs, while Brazil and India remain subject to 50 per cent tariffs on their products.
Greenland standoff: Russian and Chinese threat?
Most European leaders — particularly those from the Baltic states and the Nordic region — have for many years warned about the Russian threat to European security, despite President Putin repeatedly stating that Russia has no intention of invading any of these countries. The “strategic defeat” of Russia has been one of the European objectives for some time. Yet when President Trump now points to Russian and Chinese threats to Greenland’s security, Denmark and other European players dismiss these claims.
In the Greenland standoff, President Trump has now targeted Denmark and seven other European countries — Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK — by imposing 10 per cent tariffs from February 1, rising to 25 per cent on June 1, until they agree to come to the negotiating table over the sale of Greenland to the United States.
Although Europe may take some time to respond due to internal incoherence, individual leaders such as French President Macron, as well as the EU leadership, have begun to hint at possible responses to President Trump’s aggressive behaviour.
In the coming days, a range of statements and proposals are likely to emerge from the European Parliament’s plenary session in Strasbourg, as well as from the emergency meetings convened by European Council President Antonio Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.
These developments indicate that Europe is taking the threat to its sovereignty very seriously. European leaders now understand that this is not merely media noise from President Trump and are likely to try to prevent him from pursuing it. While Trump is clearly interested in Greenland’s natural resources, he is not emphasising this publicly now. Instead, he is framing the issue in terms of the Arctic, US security, and alleged Russian and Chinese threats.
He is not interested in logical arguments that all necessary security enhancements can easily be achieved through existing agreements without any transfer of sovereignty. Instead, he is hardening his rhetoric by asserting that all options to take over Greenland remain on the table.
The immediate European response is likely to involve retaliation if the additional 10 per cent tariffs come into effect on February 1. This could take the form of a €93 billion package of counter-tariffs on US goods. There are also suggestions to invoke the EU’s Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI) — often described as the EU’s “trade bazooka” — which is designed to penalise countries that use market access as a tool of geopolitical coercion. Although originally conceived with China in mind, it could, ironically, be deployed against the United States.
Since the EU is a customs union, it is also unclear how the United States could apply different tariffs to selected EU member states. Either such measures would have to be extended to all members automatically, or they would be ineffective, as trade could simply be diverted through other member states.
As part of a trade deal, the United States imposed 15 per cent tariffs on the EU. The deal has still not been ratified by the European Parliament. There are reports that several major parliamentary groups, including the centre-right European People’s Party, the Socialists, and Renew, are indicating that, in light of the new Greenland-related tariffs, the deal may not be approved.
Since Trump’s focus is on territory, the threat to the EU is existential. If it is unable to defend the territory of one of its members, all talk of “European sovereignty”, “strategic autonomy”, “European defence”, “strategic compass” and the NATO alliance becomes meaningless. The deployment of limited military personnel in Greenland by other NATO members is designed to make any US takeover more complicated both militarily and in terms of domestic US politics.
Europeans are also aware that the standoff could lead the United States to reduce or withdraw its support for Ukraine. However, conceding Greenland could further embolden President Trump to pursue direct deals with Moscow. So, despite the difficulties in reaching consensus within the EU framework, the coming days and weeks may witness greater European resolve to take on President Trump.
The writer is Jean Monnet Chair and Professor at the Centre for European Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
Share
