Re-published on March 30, 2025

With Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod at the helm, Denmark is now heading for its biggest foreign policy scandal – and that’s saying a lot – since the occupation of Iraq.

According to this article on DR.dk, neither the Foreign Policy Committee nor the Greenland Committee has been informed about the US ‘offer you can’t refuse’ to Greenland – as presented by the US ambassador in Copenhagen, Carla Sands, on Altinget.*

Members of parliament from both SF and the Danish People’s Party call the US announcement ‘reprehensible’ and ‘unheard of.’ Former Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard says he has not been informed about it.

So either the government has been informed by the US but has kept the negotiations secret, or the US is now in the process of buying Greenland behind Denmark’s back.

The Foreign Minister’s response in the above article’s video smells like something is not quite right. And what he is quoted as saying shows that he hasn’t understood the much larger conflict that this is part of. For him, the relationship with the US is paramount.

It will prove to be a very short-term perspective. But it’s the most convenient.

Denmark doesn’t dare enter into a conflict with the US over this as much as anything else. Presumably, Danish foreign policy pants were shaken when Prime Minister Frederiksen used the word ‘absurd’ in relation to Trump’s ‘property trade’ proposal last year and his insulting cancellation of his visit to Denmark.

Then the president had to be softened up with a phone call and a consulate in Greenland, and now comes Trump’s heartwarming desire to help the poor Greenlanders. The amount – DKK 83 million – is small enough not to seem like a purchase and large enough to be interesting to the apparently somewhat inexperienced Greenlandic members of parliament in international politics.

It’s a kind of bait and switch. To get on the slippery slope. The strategy is well known, where the US does not use bombing and occupation: Incremental influence via money and services leading over time to total domination and consequent disempowerment and use of Greenland in the US confrontation policy against Russia and China.

It seems that the chairman of the Greenlandic Home Rule Government, Kim Kielsen, is on board. But will Greenland – strategically speaking – be more independent with Washington alone than with Copenhagen? Together with the US, Denmark, Russia and China?

Denmark’s submission and the Danish Broadcasting’s role as the US mouthpiece

Seen with independent eyes, it should be clear enough that Denmark has not, at least in the last 30 years, pursued anything that could be called an independent – or independently-minded – foreign policy in relation to the US.

To be more loyal to the interests of your own population – the Danes and Greenlanders – than to the imperial and militaristic interests of the US state – well, you just can‘t do that.

But it is an unfreedom that goes against sovereignty, democracy and the idea of freedom of speech – yes, even a normal interpretation of friendship.

In terms of foreign policy, Denmark behaves towards Washington as East Germany did towards Moscow in its time. The most telling thing that has been said about the relationship with the US was expressed by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen at the press conference following the US assassination of Iranian General Soleimani when (after condemning Iran’s weak response) she was asked how she viewed it: ‘I have no need to comment on American activities.’

And without exception, DR – The Danish Broadcasting – plays the completely unacceptable role of US mouthpiece for public service. All you have to do is find an associate professor at the Royal Danish Defence College – a clear party to the case and not impartial expertise – who has already interpreted the case in the US military press (informatively but one-sidedly) in favour of the strategy the US is now following.

Naturally, DR wouldn’t dare find an expert with a critical stance on US foreign policy, but still feels obliged to report if members of parliament are critical.

The government and Jeppe Kofoed have a very bad case on their hands.

A simple analysis and good friends with everyone: Win/win and ‘equidistance’

I’ve written about this before – way back in 2005 when I visited Greenland in connection with the Igaliku Agreement (see below) – and here on the blog, especially with reference to an excellent article by Ulrik Tarp Jensen from last year – ‘How the US is kicking the Danes out of Greenland.’

Denmark is now subject to a form of regime change policy from the US.

If the Danish foreign ministry had the political courage and will, a knowledgeable, broad investigative capacity and a reasonable planning horizon, a sober conflict analysis of the motives and capacities of the Arctic actors would have been made long ago, and scenarios of the type ‘if we do A, this will happen’ and ‘if we instead do B or C or D, the other actors in current and future conflicts will probably do the positive and the negative. So, all things being equal, we should probably choose to go this way for the next 20-30 years…’

I would think that a total submission like this to the US and thus antagonising all other players would be the most likely losing strategy for both Greenland and Denmark itself.

Also, the US is a sinking ship in the short term; neither Russia nor China is. China in particular has infinitely more to offer Greenland in terms of economic, cultural, ecological and other civil co-operation à la the new Silk Roads – which you can read wise perspectives on by Mia Bennett here and here – ‘the US has already fallen behind.’

Personally, I would use the theory of equidistance and keep as many doors open as possible – not playing one against the other, but playing together. After all, this not a zero-sum game.

By letting the US take an incrementalist approach to Greenland, where the US will gain infinitely more than Greenland and Copenhagen will lose Greenland for all practical purposes, you miss out on all the potential for cooperation and détente that could be found in a good relationship with Russia and China.

In other words: loose/loose (which Kofod erroneously and wishfully presents as win/win) instead of loose a little and win a lot.

Notes and more reading

– The fact that ambassador Sands’ description of both Russia and China is chock-full of both fake and omissions should give anyone cause to suspect foul play. It also shows that this is a matter of big politics, not concern for Greenlanders.

– There are several informative articles on Altinget about this whole affair.

– The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Arctic Strategy 2011-2020

– On 28 April, Hans Jakob Helms writes an interesting article on Altinget about the current development in light of the 2004 Igaliku Agreement between Denmark, Greenland and the USA.

– Jan Øberg, Greenlandic Cultural and Social Research 2004-05, Balancér Igaliku-aftalen med fredspolitik. Here in English.
The Igaliku Agreement is the Greenlandic-Danish-American agreement that gives the US carte blanche to use the Thule Air Base. The article reviews what the agreement says and doesn’t say, and places it within the framework of the US strategy for nuclear warfare.
I then make 7 suggestions on how Greenland can contribute to a more peaceful world in the future, now that it has – probably unwittingly – contributed to a possible nuclear war.
The lecture gave rise to some debate in Greenland and is now published in the University of Greenland’s – Ilimatusarfik’s – Yearbook by Atuagkat Publishing.

– The Igaliku agreement should have been put to a referendum
IA’s Kuupik Kleist has lashed out at peace and conflict researcher Jan Øberg, who has criticised Greenland for allowing the missile shield at the Thule base. (Greenland Broadcasting Corporation).

– Fredrik Heffermehl in Politiken last 2019.

Find here the original article in Danish on Jan Oberg’s blog, April 2020.