Professor Rachael Lorna Johnstone notes that senior Republican Ted Cruz, during a congressional hearing on Greenland, repeatedly spoke about the need for the Greenlandic people to approve a new alliance with Greenland. However, she also warns that many American politicians either do not understand or simply do not recognize Greenland's right to self-determination.
Shortly before Christmas, Donald Trump expressed a desire to take over and control Greenland.
Since then, the president has made a number of further statements about his interest in Greenland, and the interest has materialized in two specific bills in Congress and a hearing in the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Sermitsiaq has asked Professor Rachael Lorna Johnstone about her assessment of the specific initiatives on the part of the United States. She is a law professor at Ilisimatusarfik and has researched international human rights and indigenous peoples' rights. She is currently in Washington as part of the Fulbright Arctic Initiative IV, which brings together researchers from several countries.
One bill in Congress is about giving Greenland a new name, which the professor does not see as a serious proposal but more as an attempt to attract attention to the proposer.
Regarding the second proposal, which would allow Donald Trump to negotiate with the Kingdom of Denmark about Greenland, the professor notes that the bill does not mention Greenland as a negotiating partner:
The bill is only an authorization to negotiate with Denmark. It does not provide authority for more than that, and Denmark has made it quite clear that they will say no.
It is remarkable that there is no recognition of the Greenlanders as a relevant negotiating partner, writes Rachael Lorna Johnstone in a written comment to Sermitsiaq.
She further explains that the bill turns the normal process on its head, should Trump succeed in landing an agreement:
Instead of Congress having to positively accept the treaty, the draft is worded in such a way that the agreement will enter into force if Congress does not vote to reject it, explains Rachael Lorna Johnstone.
In addition to the two bills, a hearing was held in Congress last week on Greenland.
Rachael Lorna Johnstone believes that the hearing did not bring much new knowledge about the Americans' intentions, but she notes several comments from Republican Ted Cruz. He is chairman of the Commerce Committee, which held the hearing:
Ted Cruz emphasized a couple of times that the Greenlanders should agree to any change in the relationship with the United States. That, I think, is a pretty big point.
Cruz is a high-ranking Republican with an eye on the presidency, so he cannot afford to upset Trump or MAGA by speaking directly against everything Trump says. But he talked about how the United States could persuade Greenland to agree to bind itself to the United States, and although he did not directly say so himself, he asked questions so that the experts could explain that any use of force would not be constructive, is the assessment of Rachael Lorna Johnstone.
Naalakkersuisut's (The Government of Greenland) response to the great American interest has so far been that Greenland is not for sale, but that it would like to discuss closer cooperation and investments.
Rachael Lorna Johnstone warns that many American politicians either do not understand or simply do not recognize Greenland's right to self-determination.
However, the great interest from the superpower may also prove to revive relations between the three countries, she assesses:
The cooperation between Greenland, Denmark and the United States has been going on for decades, and I do not expect that to change. Perhaps the liveliness of the discussion and perhaps some of the more direct or even careless language used can open the door to a deeper and calmer conversation about increased cooperation, both on security and investments, says the professor.
However, she emphasizes the importance of the Greenlandic government continuing to respond strongly to any denial of their rights as a people, especially anything that bypasses the right of Greenlanders to make their own decisions about their forms of governance and preferred international partners.
Source: Sermitsiaq (In Danish)
Also read the publication:
Saudi Talks Bring the Arctic to the Forefront
