US President Donald Trump may be backing off on his threat to take over Greenland, but his initiative over the island has already changed the way foreign policy is conducted in Washington and beyond.
More than any other global issue Trump has addressed, his obsession with Greenland has confounded diplomats, analysts, and economic experts. People on the left, but also quite a few on the right.
Even diplomats who do not come from Europe are shaken.
“It was like, what?” said one African official in Washington. “It was shocking how serious the threat was. And it’s not over,” he added.
Susan Maloney, a Middle East analyst and director of the Foreign Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, said it all seemed “like the world had gone crazy.”
"The language, the determination on this issue - everything seems completely unrelated to our national interests," he adds.
Until recently, many foreign policy experts still wondered whether the post-World War II, “rules-based” international order was dead. After Trump’s Greenland gambit, I’ve been hearing more and more outright claims that it is dead. Canadian leader Mark Carney said something similar this week at the World Economic Forum.
That means foreign policy consultants are rethinking the advice they give clients, while think tanks are rethinking travel and research plans. Maloney, for example, said she had to hand her research priorities for the next fiscal year to her superiors this week, but warned them that the list could change as soon as next week.
Trump's insistence that the United States take control of Greenland has damaged America's standing among allies, and critics say it's a price that should never have been paid.
European diplomats say the Greenland crisis has created a new reality, as it is now clearer than ever that even allies are not safe from Trump's manipulations.
“It creates a kind of fear in the European Union,” said one European diplomat. “It’s no longer just a matter of imagination, but of understanding that this is a new day and that traditional ways, rules, laws, don’t necessarily apply. Everything is now subject to negotiation,” he explained. (The diplomats and other interlocutors remained anonymous due to the sensitivity of the subject.)
That's despite Trump toning down his rhetoric on Wednesday. He first said he would not use military force to take over Greenland, and later announced he was withdrawing the threat of tariffs after a "framework" deal was reached on the territory. Details were not immediately available.
But Trump, who has wanted Greenland since his first term, changes his mind so often that Europeans — or any other global player — would be naive to believe that the issue is settled. He has a history of walking away from agreements, including those his own administration made. Plus, he has three more years in office.
Trump critics said they were not ready to relax, despite the softening of the tone.
“His core interest is to expand the map of the United States,” said Eric Green, a former senior National Security Council official in the Biden administration who was in charge of Russia and Central Asia. “Sooner or later, he will return to that,” he is convinced.
Trump's ambitions regarding Greenland have disrupted the plans of many international relations experts to an extent that is unusual even for a president who enjoys upsetting established notions.
The whole Greenland saga is particularly difficult for international relations professors, who are constantly having to change their curricula. They are trained to use neutral language to explain the actions of powerful actors and help students understand the world.
But, as Daniel Drezner, academic dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, says: “There comes a point when you just want to say - this is a damn stupid idea.”
Trump's Greenland initiative was accompanied by a level of self-interest that went beyond his usual "America First" justification. Trump himself has said he is pushing the idea in part because he was hurt by not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.
“It all feels like an episode of 'The Twilight Zone.' He's linking a personal insult to a geopolitical demand that's completely unreasonable,” Green said.
Trump's foreign policy moves usually have some internal logic. You don't have to agree with it, but you can recognize it.
He bombed Iran's nuclear facilities because it was a rare opportunity to roll back a program that could threaten the United States. He imprisoned Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro because he wants access to Venezuelan oil and because he sees Maduro as a narco-dictator whose regime undermines American interests. He imposed tariffs on almost every country because he believes it will make the United States more economically independent in the long run.
In pressuring Denmark to hand over, or sell, Greenland, Trump and his associates claim they are acting in the American national interest. The island has great strategic importance and is rich in natural resources.
Alex Gray, who served as a senior member of the National Security Council during Trump's first term, said one long-term concern is the possibility that Greenlanders could seek full independence from Denmark in the future, which would make them more vulnerable to influence from China or Russia.
“So we have to come up with the best possible offer and give them something really attractive,” Gray said of the US push for Greenland.
Trump has a history of making seemingly extreme demands and then settling for what he can get. He is sometimes spooked by markets, which have not responded well to his Greenland initiative.
Some say it's a retreat, but this approach has its advantages. It forces people to talk about topics that would otherwise be ignored or to accept terms they would never otherwise accept.
But Trump's insistence that the United States take control of Greenland has damaged America's standing among allies, a price critics say should never have been paid.
After all, Washington already has vast access to Greenland under previous agreements with Denmark; US troops are already operating in Greenland, and the US could send additional forces. Trump’s demand that Denmark cede the territory is a serious blow to US relations with its European allies. It also hurts NATO, the military alliance that includes both the US and Denmark, which would defend Greenland in the event of a threat from a hostile power.
For those who advise clients, teach students, shape policy, or try to inform the public, Trump's moves on Greenland show how difficult foreign policy prediction has become.
The true effects of Trump’s moves may not be felt until after he leaves office. He often appears to be making bigger changes than they actually are; the effective rate of his tariffs, for example, is often lower than what he publicly announces. Many of his policies are also contradictory. For example, he wants African countries to strengthen their economies and become less dependent on aid, but his tariffs are hurting those economies.
An additional problem is that much about Greenland comes down to the personality of one man.
Maybe this is an argument for us all to take a course in political psychology. Or join a support group for exhausted foreign policy experts?
Text taken from Politika
Prepared by: SS
Bonus video:
