In the intricate relationship between Greenland and Denmark, two distinct narratives have emerged – one championed by the ruling classes in Denmark, and the other by the progressive and nationalist forces in Greenland. The former tells a story of Greenland’s successful transition to a modern society, while the latter sees it as a continued legacy of colonialism.
The Danish narrative highlights Greenland’s impressive achievements, such as maintaining its own parliament, political institutions, and education system, all while enjoying the same welfare services as other Danish citizens. This, they argue, has been accomplished under challenging conditions by a population of just 55,000 on a vast, isolated island. Proponents of this view see Denmark’s role as a formidable vehicle for Greenlanders to achieve self-determination, with freedom being about gradually building institutions and capacity for self-governance under the Danish crown.
In contrast, the opposing narrative paints Greenland’s recent history as a mere continuation of colonisation. Supporters of this view claim the Danes have never truly respected Greenlanders as equals, and that the Danes have always been illegitimate rulers. They point to historical scandals, such as the forced sterilisation of Greenlandic women in the 1960s and 70s, as evidence of persistent and institutional racism in Denmark against the Greenlandic people.
This tension has been exacerbated by the cultural and geographical distance between Greenland and Denmark, making it morally and politically difficult to defend an arrangement in which a vast island is governed by a small country with a vastly different social and cultural history, thousands of miles away, unless the people of Greenland choose it as their collective path to greater self-determination.
The dilemma for Greenland is that its best leverage against its old colonial master, Denmark, is its newfound attractiveness to the Trump administration in the US. However, its best defence against a new imperial master is the recognition of the legitimacy of the old one. Greenland must now decide whether to use Trump to pressure Denmark or to use the Danish kingdom to protect itself from him.
As the true nature of Trump’s offensive becomes increasingly clear, the danger facing Greenland’s small population in a geostrategically vital position is becoming more evident. Trump’s appeals to anti-colonial impulses in Greenland even as he openly reveals his true imperial ambitions have the potential to unite, rather than polarise, the Danes and Greenlanders.
Ultimately, this places Greenland in a delicate balancing act, where it must navigate the complexities of self-determination and the shifting geopolitical landscape, all while preserving its dignity and protecting the fundamental conditions of its people’s lives.