Welcome deescalation: On Donald Trump, Greenland and Europe Politics & News

In a move that brings a sense of relief to European nations and NATO members, U.S. President Donald Trump, in a speech at the World Economic Forum at Davos, appeared to back down from the possibility of the use of force to acquire Greenland, an autonomous Arctic territory administered by Denmark. Simultaneously, he hit out at world leaders, including from friendly countries such as Canada, France and Switzerland. His remarks came after weeks of rising tension over his earlier proposal to impose on eight European countries a 10% tariff on “any and all goods” beginning on February 1, which was then set to increase to 25% on June 1 until an agreement was reached for the U.S. to purchase or otherwise acquire Greenland. Given the broader context of the Trump administration using military force to kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to the U.S. and it hinting publicly at similar interventions in the affairs of Colombia, Cuba, Iran and Mexico, European nations came close to retaliating with an anti-coercion instrument that is a counter-tariff facility targeting the business of major U.S. tech firms in the EU. After Mr. Trump’s Davos comments, however, the focus has shifted to what he described as “the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region”. Hinting that the time frame of such a deal would be “infinite”, Mr. Trump also indicated that additional discussions on Greenland are ongoing, relating to the $175 billion Golden Dome missile defence plan, to position U.S. weapons in space.

Troubling though the strident rhetoric out of Washington was on the subject of taking over Greenland, the deeper institutional malaise that the conversations at Davos hinted at relate to the gradual breakdown of the rules-based international order. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney poignantly alluded to this dysfunction in global trading and financial systems and trends in migration and climate change mitigation policies. He said that great powers were now using economic integration as weapons, tariffs as leverage, financial infrastructure as coercion, and supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited. He warned a vast swathe of “middle powers” of the world that contend with the complexities of this rivalry: “There is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along… To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety. It won’t.” Indeed, countries such as India, which have lingering concerns in bilateral ties with the U.S. despite overall positive trends in cooperation, would do well to consider whether his words on prioritising rule of law over the use of brute force as a modus operandi on the global stage ring true at home.