The threat of military action from US President Trump, fresh off his recent threats against the country of Greenland, has reverberated in Europe, leaving many awkward questions about the very future of NATO itself on the table. This, in fact, represents the first threat in the history of NATO that it was not equipped to handle, namely the scenario in which a NATO country attacks a fellow NATO country.
Greenland is a Semi-Autonomous Territory of Denmark, which is a founding member of NATO. So, for any action to be undertaken by the US against Greenland, it shall mean an attack on the sovereignty of a founding member of NATO, thus NATO reputation at its weakest best.
Why Greenland is important to strategy
Geographically speaking, Greenland’s increasing strategic importance is situated between North America and Europe and between missile ranges from Russia. The increasing strategic rivalry in the Arctic region has seen an expansion of presence in the region by both Moscow and Beijing. The US has said Greenland is crucial for US national security.
Some critics believe the reasons mentioned above do not entail either ownership or control. The United States currently maintains the Pituffik Space Base, a crucial missile detection and satellite system operated by the United States Space Force. Through a military agreement in 1951, the U.S. has extensive military access in Greenland with the approval of the Danish government, not threatening the sovereignty of the Danish state.
This brings into question the basic premise that has been bothering capitals of European countries: if the current system addresses the security needs of the US, what is the point of escalation?
NATO’s Article 5 dilemma
The root cause of this crisis is NATO’s Article 5. It is basically a collective defense clause for NATO. It identifies any attack on its members as being a result of an attack on all its partners. Invoked for only one time in history; in 2001 after the attack of 9/11.
In fact, most importantly, it does not provide for a situation where a nation in NATO attacks a nation which is also in NATO.
According to legal experts, if the United States uses military action against Greenland, this will hobble NATO. In NATO, every member country has a veto. It will certainly be used to ensure that NATO does not respond to the military action it is-party to. This will result in a strategic vacuum that can be filled, among others, by Russia.
The NATO alliance will not break apart overnight,” explains one European analyst, “but could become ‘functionally irrelevant.
Europe strikes back – with reserve
“Denmark and Greenland decided to dispatch their most senior diplomats to carry out a direct confrontation meeting with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen stated that their meeting would be “a meeting of clear communication,” realizing that “Greenland’s future cannot be one of threat.”
The NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, has tried to ease the tension caused by the concern for the Arctic region, pointing to the need to make the security of the Arctic a worldwide issue. The NATO member nations are also working together concerning the waters around Greenland, thus confirming the idea that the region around the Arctic is a community issue, not a bargaining chip.
Bluff, leverage or grave threat?
Some former NATO insiders believe that these are only Trumpian threats and that he does not really mean what he says. Others are less certain. The implications of NATO being unnecessary in light of some recent US actions abroad and Mr. Trump’s questioning of NATO’s usefulness has dampened European enthusiasm for viewing these threats as empty gesturing.
The uncertainty in and of itself is a cause of instability.
ALSO READ: Jerome Powell Criminal Inquiry: What’s at Stake for US Fed Independence
Can US institutions resist it?
The resistance is growing in Washington. “If there were an attempt to use force to attack NATO, Congress would probably get in the way,” says Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat and chairman of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.
Bipartisan Congressional Delegation Embarks on a Trip to Denmark to Show Alliance Strength: Members of Congress
Yet, Trump has his supporters, too: Congressmember Randy Fine has introduced a bill that grants the president a right to annex or buy Greenland. Such a moves are a reflection of just how fragmented American politics have become.
A defining test for NATO
NATO has lived through inner clashes more than once, but a direct threat to the territory of member countries is somehow a treachery to those very principles the pact keeps at the core of NATO: the spirit of sovereignty, the collective security and defense clause, and the prevalence of the law.
For a long time, Greenland was regarded as the farthest corner of the world, but suddenly the polar region became a test case for the world order of the transatlantic. Yet to be seen is whether this crisis can be addressed by NATO and whether the alliance will be able to close the gap.
FOR MORE: https://civiclens.in/category/international-news/
About the Author
