Kangerlussuaq, Greenland, seen in September. U.S. President Donald Trump’s obsession with Greenland hits uncomfortably close to home for Canada, but perhaps there is a possibility we could find common cause with the territory.Guglielmo Mangiapane/Reuters
Peter Jones is a professor at the University of Ottawa.
When U.S. President Donald Trump mused about “buying” Greenland in his first term, it was a joke. It’s not funny anymore.
Though Mr. Trump has, of late, been quiet about Greenland, reports of shadowy U.S. attempts to foment unrest there this summer were a reminder of his desire to annex the Danish Arctic territory. In August, the Danish security service said it uncovered a covert attempt to sow discord and an illusion of a widespread public desire for Greenlanders to join the U.S. The senior American diplomat in Copenhagen was summoned to Denmark’s foreign ministry for a dressing-down over the issue. The Trump administration responded that Denmark should “calm down.”
For Canada, Mr. Trump’s obsession with Greenland hits uncomfortably close to home. Though we have not been militarily threatened, we are also in his crosshairs. But perhaps there is a possibility we could find common cause with Greenland and Denmark.
The geologies of Greenland and of Canada’s neighbouring Northern territory, Nunavut, are very similar. The Indigenous peoples of the two territories are closely related ethnically and linguistically. And they have similar political relationships with their two nations, Canada and Denmark: they are both self-governing territories, though the exact nature of these attachments is different, with Greenland exercising greater internal self-rule.
Opinion: The U.S. is interfering with public debate in Greenland. Canada could be next
For many years, there has been political and cultural exchange between Greenland and Nunavut, but not much in the way of economic co-operation. Perhaps that could change. There might even be opportunities to explore co-operation in the development of resources.
In 2022, Greenland and Nunavut signed a memorandum of understanding on collaboration, building further on an earlier MOU signed in 2000. The new MOU established a framework for subsequent agreements on conservation, fisheries, tourism, cultural co-operation and more.
So, a framework exists. And perhaps the time has come to take it further and explore a joint approach to economic development in the region. What remains to be seen is whether there are economies of scale that could be achieved through such a venture, and if collaboration in accessing environmentally sensitive resources in both territories would make sense.
The other question is whether Canada would want to risk further ire from Mr. Trump by aligning itself so concretely with a territory that he has set his sights on. He might see it as an unfriendly move. But it would be a chance to further strengthen relations in the Arctic and with Europe, and could be profitable. Canada has practical experience in resource development in the North to share.
Why does Donald Trump want Greenland and could he get it?
What steps can be taken? First, we presently have an honorary consulate in Greenland, which provides very limited services. Our primary relationship is through our embassy in Copenhagen. This can change with an upgrade of the office in Greenland to full consulate status. An emphasis could be placed on having the office facilitate greater exchanges between the people of Canada’s North and Greenland, and the exploration of further economic opportunities. The opening of a full consulate was mentioned as an objective of Canada’s 2024 Arctic foreign policy strategy document, but no date has been given for implementation. Maybe it’s time to speed this up.
Second, our Arctic and offshore patrol vessels, and their soon-to-be-delivered Canadian Coast Guard counterparts, could undertake regular visits to Greenland. Building on the recent experience of the Royal Canadian Navy in hosting a scientific expedition to the Antarctic on a patrol vessel, we could seek opportunities for regular collaboration on climate change initiatives.
Third, the Canadian Rangers, Canada’s defence presence in the North, could exchange Arctic expertise and experience with Danish forces. There have been infrequent and sporadic exchanges in the past, but this can change. Regular visits and exercises could be held. Denmark has recently launched a similar project to offer basic military training to Indigenous people on Greenland. Perhaps Canada’s Rangers could help this along and establish some useful and enduring relationships along the way.
The Editorial Board: To strengthen Canada, start in the North
Greenland and Denmark might welcome enhanced Canadian collaboration as a counterweight to the U.S. presence in the Arctic. Obviously, we can never replace that presence, nor would we want to try. But an enhanced Canadian presence and our co-operation might be appreciated.
The Arctic is heating up, both literally and politically. It will be a fulcrum of strategic and economic activity in the coming decades. Greenland and Arctic Canada share much in terms of geography, history and culture. They also share, it seems, an increasingly uncomfortable degree of notice from our restive neighbour to the south.
We must seek opportunities to think more strategically about how we can collaborate. Such collaboration needn’t, and shouldn’t, be overtly anti-American, but it can be designed to send some subtle messages while furthering Canada’s interests.