Greenland Election: Independence Debates and Trump’s Shadow

Greenland’s recent parliamentary election has yielded a complex outcome, highlighting the nuanced perspectives on the island’s future relationship with Denmark and the potential influence of the United States. The Demokraatit party, advocating for a gradual approach to independence, emerged as the frontrunner. However, the Naleraq party, pushing for rapid independence and closer ties with the U.S., secured its best result ever, casting a spotlight on external factors influencing Greenlandic politics.

The Demokraatit party, a center-right faction, garnered 29.9% of the vote, a significant leap from its 9.1% share in 2021. This victory positions Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the party’s leader and former minister of industry and minerals, to lead negotiations with other parties, including Naleraq, to form a governing coalition. Meanwhile, the ruling Inuit Ataqatigiit party and its partner Siumut, both proponents of a gradual path toward independence, collectively secured 36% of the vote.

Nielsen emphasized a pragmatic approach to independence, stating, "We don’t want independence tomorrow; we want a good foundation." This sentiment reflects a broader concern among many Greenlanders about the potential economic and social consequences of a swift transition to full sovereignty.

The election took place against the backdrop of former U.S. President Donald Trump’s persistent interest in acquiring Greenland. Trump has repeatedly asserted that securing Greenland is vital to U.S. security interests, a notion largely dismissed by Greenlanders. Trump’s interest in Greenland has sparked a range of reactions, from shock and intrigue to bewilderment, among the island’s residents.

Greenland has a complex history with Denmark, having been a Danish colony for over two centuries. Over time, Denmark has granted Greenland increasing autonomy, including its own local government. The existing agreement between Greenland and Denmark allows Greenland to declare independence following a majority vote in a referendum. However, no such referendum has been scheduled.

While widespread support for full sovereignty exists in Greenland, many residents harbor reservations about its implications for the island’s defense and economy. The diverse opinions on the pace of independence were reflected in the election results, with five of the six parties on the ballot favoring independence, but differing on the timeline.

Nielsen articulated a common sentiment among Greenlanders, stating, "We don’t want to be Americans. No, we don’t want to be Danes. We want to be Greenlanders. And we want our own independence in the future. And we want to build our own country by ourselves."

Despite Naleraq’s strong showing, analysts suggest that its calls for an immediate vote on sovereignty are unlikely to be heeded. Anne Merrild, a professor at Denmark’s Aalborg University specializing in Arctic studies, noted that the election results signal a desire for change and development among Greenlanders. She believes Greenlanders want a government focused on internal strengthening and steady progress.

Following the formation of a new coalition, Greenlandic parties are expected to initiate internal discussions on how to advance the process of gaining greater independence from Denmark while ensuring economic and social stability.

Naleraq’s leader, Pelé Broberg, has welcomed Trump’s interest in Greenland, viewing it as a potential business opportunity that could benefit Greenlanders. His party’s second-place finish may lead to a push for increased engagement with Washington. Kuno Fencker, another Naleraq lawmaker, has even attended Trump’s inauguration, highlighting the party’s willingness to explore closer ties with the U.S.

Trump’s initial expression of interest in buying Greenland in 2019 was met with swift rejections from both Danish and Greenlandic officials. Despite this, Trump has reiterated his desire to acquire the island.

The United States currently maintains a military base in northern Greenland. The Trump administration believes that securing Greenland further would bolster U.S. missile defense capabilities for early warnings and space surveillance. Additionally, the U.S. aims to counter Chinese and Russian influence in the Arctic region.

Economic factors also appear to be driving Trump’s interest in Greenland. The island is believed to possess valuable deposits of oil and gas, as well as untapped rare earth minerals, including uranium and zinc. These minerals are crucial for the production of consumer electronics, clean energy technologies, and defense technologies.

Polls suggest that the overwhelming majority of Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the United States, a sentiment seemingly reinforced by the election results.

Despite this opposition, Trump has continued to express his determination to acquire Greenland, stating that the United States would gain control of the island "one way or the other." He has even hinted at the possibility of using force, while also claiming that the U.S. "strongly supports the people of Greenland’s right to determine their own future."

Trump has also used his Truth Social platform to appeal to Greenlanders, promising to "KEEP YOU SAFE" and "INVEST BILLIONS OF DOLLARS" to create new jobs and wealth if Greenland chooses to become part of the United States.

Ulrik Pram Gad, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen, estimates that a referendum on independence could occur within the next two to ten years. He believes that Greenland’s security arrangements with the United States, in place since 1951, are unlikely to change unless Trump takes unexpected or aggressive actions. The current arrangements continue under President Biden.

The Greenlandic election underscores the complex interplay between internal political dynamics, historical ties with Denmark, and external influences from the United States. The future of Greenland remains uncertain, but it will likely involve a careful balancing act between pursuing greater independence and ensuring economic and social stability, while also navigating the geopolitical interests of major powers.