The potential of a forceful U.S. takeover of Greenland is elevating many unprecedented questions — together with how Canada, the European Union and NATO might reply and even retaliate towards an ostensible ally.
A high-level assembly between Greenlandic, Danish and U.S. officers this week didn’t resolve the “elementary disagreement” over the territory’s sovereignty however did set the stage for extra talks. The White Home made clear Thursday that U.S. President Donald Trump’s need to manage Greenland has not modified after the assembly.
“He desires the USA to accumulate Greenland. He thinks it’s in our greatest nationwide safety to do this,” White Home press secretary Karoline Leavitt mentioned.
Denmark and European allies are sending extra troops to the territory in a present of power and to show a dedication to Arctic safety.
Specialists say there are different, non-military measures obtainable within the occasion of a U.S. annexation or invasion of Greenland, or which might no less than be threatened to attempt to get Trump to again down.
Whether or not these financial measures are literally used is one other matter, these specialists say.
“I feel it stays extremely unlikely that we’ll get to that time the place we’ve to significantly focus on penalties for a U.S. transfer on Greenland,” mentioned Otto Svendsen, an affiliate fellow with the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program on the Middle for Strategic and Worldwide Research.
“So it stays contingency planning for a extremely unlikely occasion. That being mentioned … Denmark will surely do every part in its energy to rally a really strong European response.”
Right here’s what that might entail.
EU commerce, tech disruptions?
Specialists agree the largest stress factors that can be utilized within the U.S. encompass commerce and expertise.
The European Parliament’s commerce committee is at present debating whether or not to postpone implementing the commerce deal signed between Trump and the EU final summer time to protest the threats towards Greenland, Reuters reported Wednesday.
Many lawmakers have complained that the deal is lopsided, with the EU required to chop most import duties whereas the U.S. sticks to a broad 15 per cent tariff for European items.
Get every day Nationwide information
Get the day’s high information, political, financial, and present affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox as soon as a day.
An excellent bolder transfer can be triggering the EU’s anti-coercion instrument — often known as the “commerce bazooka” — that will enable the bloc to hit non-member nations with tariffs, commerce restrictions, international funding bans, and different penalties if that nation is discovered to be utilizing coercive financial measures.
Though the regulation defines coercion as “measures affecting commerce and funding,” Svendsen mentioned it might feasibly be utilized in a diplomatic or territorial dispute as nicely.
“EU legal professionals have confirmed themselves to be very inventive in recent times,” he mentioned.
Nevertheless, David Perry, president of the Canadian World Affairs Institute, mentioned in an e mail that financial measures towards the U.S. are unlikely “given the huge asymmetry within the defence and financial relationship between the U.S.” and different western nations.
“Any type of sanction towards the U.S. doesn’t make sense for a similar purpose they will impose tariffs on others: they’ve the ability,” Perry added.
Goal U.S. tech corporations?
The likeliest — and doubtlessly least dangerous — situation for retaliation within the occasion of an assault on Greenland, Svendsen mentioned, can be fines or bans towards U.S. tech corporations like Google, Meta and X working in Europe.
That’s as a result of the Trump administration has taken specific deal with stopping what they name “assaults” on American corporations by international governments looking for to control their on-line content material or tax their revenues, which has led to calls on Canada, Britain and the EU to repeal legal guidelines like digital providers taxes.
“I feel that will be a extremely good and focused solution to get to financial pursuits very near the president, whereas minimizing the direct influence on the on the European financial system,” Svendsen mentioned, calling such a transfer “low-hanging fruit.”
He additionally in contrast a future U.S. tech platform ban to how Europe moved to wean itself off Russian fuel after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“When you advised anybody again then that Europe would mainly rid itself of its dependence on Russian fuel mainly inside a two-year interval … that will have been thought-about fully not possible,” he mentioned.
“Weaning the European financial system off of U.S. tech will surely be painful within the quick time period, however they’ve confirmed that they will get off these dependencies rapidly if there’s political will behind it previously.”
A U.S. hostile takeover of Greenland would imply the “finish” of the NATO alliance, specialists and European leaders have mentioned.
Trump himself has acknowledged it may very well be a “alternative” between preserving the alliance or buying Greenland.
There isn’t a provision inside the NATO founding treaty that addresses the potential of a NATO member taking territory from one other, and the way the alliance ought to reply to such an act.
A NATO spokesperson advised World Information it wouldn’t “speculate on hypothetical eventualities” when requested the way it might doubtlessly act.
“None of this could be actionable in a NATO sense,” Perry mentioned. “It’s an alliance that’s organized to bind the U.S. to European safety, and revolves across the U.S. So there’s no situation of NATO doing that to the U.S.”
Denmark and different European nations might transfer to cut back or shut U.S. navy bases of their nations as a attainable response, specialists say.
Balkan Devlen, a a senior fellow on the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and director of its Transatlantic Program, mentioned in an interview {that a} U.S. annexation of Greenland would power Canada to focus totally on boosting its defences within the Arctic.
That will embody making an attempt to decouple from NORAD, the joint northern defence community with the U.S., in favour of a purely home Arctic command, he mentioned — though that course of would take years and require Canada to extend defence spending even additional.
“By no means thoughts 5 per cent (of GDP) — we are going to most likely must go like seven, eight, 9 per cent on defence spending to have the ability to do something of that kind,” he mentioned. “It’s not even clear that we’ll have the ability to have sufficient folks to do this.”
Devlen added that any retaliatory motion, whether or not navy or monetary, must be focused and proportionate to what the U.S. does.
“The issue with nuclear choices is that when you utilize it, it’s gone,” he mentioned. “And if it doesn’t do the injury or make the change of behaviour on the opposite occasion, you’ve mainly misplaced quite a lot of leverage and also you would possibly really maintain much more loss your self.”
