The American government has found a sore spot in the relationship between Greenland and Denmark.
When Maga influencers on social media and U.S. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller point to Denmark’s historically poor treatment of Greenland, they hit a sensitive nerve in the relationship between Greenland and Denmark.
This is the opinion of Greenlandic MP Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam, who sits in the Danish Parliament for Naleraq.
»I think they are just trying to find all the faults they can. And they are quite good at it because Denmark has made so many mistakes with Greenland. That’s one of the reasons why many Greenlanders today don’t trust Denmark.«
Therefore, the question of Greenland’s independence from Denmark has become even more relevant, says the Naleraq politician.
In the spring, Naleraq campaigned to activate paragraph 21 of the Greenland Self-Government Act regarding state formation, and the party still seeks independence from the Kingdom of Denmark today, Høegh-Dam explains.
She points to a free association agreement between Greenland and Denmark as a possible solution to the current tense situation. Free association between countries is an arrangement where a small state gains international legal independence but maintains a fixed relationship with another, typically much larger, country. This is the type of agreement Palau and the Marshall Islands have with the United States.
Another option is a commonwealth agreement inspired by the United Kingdom.
»It would help, in that the question »What legal claim does Denmark really have to Greenland?« would no longer come up. In legal and international terms, we’d truly appear as one,« says Høegh-Dam.
It could also silence the critical voices questioning the relationship between Denmark and Greenland.
»At the moment, we’re still split to some extent between Greenland and Denmark, even if we’re aligned on many other issues. That makes us appear weaker when we enter the Oval Office,« says Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam.
But don’t you think the American president doesn’t care whether Denmark and Greenland have found common ground?
»Absolutely.«
So what do you think it helps?
»I think it helps by showing strength outwardly. And it creates a different kind of unity between Greenland and Denmark. Right now, we are quite divided.«
»If he wants to, he can«
It is rare for Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam to advocate for »unity between Greenland and Denmark«. In fact, her party, Naleraq, which sits in opposition in the Greenlandic parliament, Inatsisartut, is known for its criticism of the Realm.
Naleraq is the only party outside the Greenlandic government, Naalakkersuisut, and while other Greenlandic parties reject dialogue with the Americans, Naleraq believes that one should not dismiss the Americans. In an interview with Information, Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam’s party colleague and fiancé, Kuno Fencker, said that interest from the U.S. is »positive for Greenland«.
Last year, Kuno Fencker received heavy criticism for a solo trip to the U.S., where he maintained contact with Americans shortly after Trump reiterated his desire to control Greenland.
But Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam rejects the notion that her or Naleraq’s criticism of Denmark has fueled American interest in Greenland.
»Greenland has always been of interest to the Americans, long before we even had a voice«, she says.
»I often feel that we Greenlanders are seen as extreme because we want our right to be Greenlanders. We just want the right to be our own people. I really don’t think there’s anything extreme or outrageous about that.«
And if the Danish government is not interested in giving Greenlanders more independence in a free association agreement, Høegh-Dam can envision a scenario where Greenland enters into an agreement with the U.S. if it leads to more independence.
»The U.S. is coming to Greenland anyway, so we have to try to get something out of it. We need to be smart about it. It’s either letting them take us over by force or trying to ensure that the Greenlandic people actually get the best out of it.«
Those are the two options?
»I can’t see any other options. If there are other options, I’d like to hear about them.«
In her view, Trump can’t be persuaded to give up his ambition to control Greenland.
»He’ll probably say: Well, they won’t listen—fuck them, I’ll just take over the whole thing. We have to be very realistic about that. And if he wants to, he can. That’s just reality. That’s why it’s important that we can say we’re also legally aligned with Denmark now.«
Need to negotiate
Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam points to the U.S. military forces and the fact that the country actually has a real possibility of enforcing a takeover of Greenland.
Regardless, Greenland should initiate a diplomatic dialogue with the U.S., she says.
Despite Høegh-Dam opening the door for an agreement with the Americans, she maintains that an agreement with Denmark is still preferable. She explains that she has repeatedly proposed various initiatives to the Danish government for more Greenlandic independence that could ensure a »win-win agreement« for both Greenland and Denmark.
»It’s a shame that whenever we’ve raised it, Denmark has, frankly, given us the finger. I tend to say it’s Denmark’s biggest foreign-policy mistake to have followed that strategy toward Greenland for so many years. And that stems from an unequal view of the Greenlandic people.«
Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam will not comment on the advantages of entering into a free association agreement with the U.S. over Denmark. Nor will she assess whether an agreement with the U.S. would improve life for Greenlanders.
But would you, for example, rule out a purchase agreement, as some media have written about – that they would actually buy Greenland? Is that a possibility?
»We are not for sale. There is also a clear consensus on that. But I also think we need to talk a bit about the realities.«
»In other words, if we continue to refuse a genuine dialogue and talks with them, they can readily justify to their public and voters that the situation is so risky they’re forced to do it.«
»That’s why I’m saying we need to negotiate with them one way or another.«
Otherwise, there is a risk that they might actually come and take the country?
»There is a risk. And it’s a risk we live with every single day.«
read next
