A Danish Approach to the Arctic

Last year the world laughed off President Trump’s musings to buy Greenland from Denmark. What started as a silly joke escalated to a full-blown squabble when the President canceled an official visit to Copenhagen after Danish Prime Minister Mette Fredriksen called Trump’s idea to purchase land from a sovereign nation in the 21st century “absurd.” This incident will go down as a peculiar speed bump in the two nations’ over 200 years of uninterrupted diplomatic relations and close military cooperation. Denmark should take this as a sign to reassess its United States-focused Arctic foreign policy. 

Despite Trump’s poor handling of the situation, purchasing Greenland would be a strategic move for the United States. Today, climate change has brought Greenland and the Arctic back into the spotlight. Changing conditions, such as diminishing ice sheets, provide new opportunities for Russia and China to pursue economic and military opportunities in the Arctic region. In the past couple of decades, Russia has been remilitarizing the Arctic. China, which declared itself a “Near Arctic” state, also seeks to use new transport routes through previously frozen waters to cut shipping costs. It has also shown interest in Greenland when it offered to buy three airports there, raising concerns that it might try establishing a military presence on the island. Greenland, whose foreign and defense policies are set by Denmark but who has economic autonomy, could gain full independence from the Kingdom through a referendum. Though this is unlikely, there are concerns that increased autonomy could enable China to win important Greenlandian contracts with geopolitical implications. Although increased Russian activities in the Arctic and Chinese interests in Greenland may sound the alarm about a forthcoming geopolitical conflict, U.S. intelligence asserts that the Arctic will remain a zone of cooperation and peace in the near term. 

However, it seems that the Trump administration would disagree with this assessment. Disparities between the intelligence community’s threat perceptions and the president’s foreign policy priorities are not uncommon.  Last May, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo warned the Arctic Council—an international body that does not deal with security matters—that, “the region has become an arena of global power and competition.” This statement came as a surprising shift in the prevailing Arctic consensus that the Arctic has always been a peaceful zone of cooperation. Formalizing this hardline stance is an escalation of tensions in itself. 

Since then, the United States has continued to signal its interest in Greenland. Besides its attempt to buy the entire island, the United States reopened a consulate in Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, and committed $12.1 million in economic aid in hopes of getting the green light to establish a larger military presence. United States ambassador to Denmark, Carla Sands, has repeatedly implored the West to “wake up” to the Arctic’s importance. While the current administration has set its priorities in the Arctic based on emerging threats, Denmark has been figuring out what to do in response. 

Denmark is one of the United States’ most loyal allies. For the past three decades, the small Nordic country of just 5.8 million people has followed the United States through “thick and thin,” being among the first to contribute armed forces without protest to U.S.-led operations from Bosnia to Afghanistan. Denmark’s foreign policy centers around being a “Super Atlanticist,” a country that prioritizes its relationship with the United States over that with its European peers and commits itself steadily to advancing whatever foreign policy goals the United States has at the time. 

The question now is whether Denmark can continue its super Atlanticism tradition in its own backyard. Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen of the Royal Danish Defense College contends that the United States’ new awareness of Russia’s military buildup and China’s interests in the Arctic have caused Denmark to start paying attention: “When Americans begin to take an interest in a foreign policy issue, then Denmark automatically becomes interested in it, too. Because America is Denmark’s most important ally.” Another Danish foreign policy expert, Mikkel R. Olesen, argued that U.S. reaction to Russian activities and Chinese Arctic interests is the biggest driving factor to shift Danish foreign policy.

As a result, Denmark has been steadily improving its Arctic capabilities, mirroring Washington’s push. It too has recognized that keeping the Arctic a “low-tension” region will likely require “balancing considerations.” For the first time in 2019, the Danish Intelligence Service included Greenland as a top security issue. Further, the Danish military’s 2018-2023 Defense Agreement increased defense spending significantly, fortifying the Danish Joint Arctic Command and funding programs such as replacing F-16s with F-35s, some of which will be based in Greenland. Last year, Prime Minister Frederiksen announced that she would triple this spending to increase airspace monitoring and submarine detection capabilities. Her defense minister Trine Bramsen also established a permanent political advisor in Nuuk to serve as a liaison between the two governments.

As with past military operations, Denmark appears to be following the United States’ lead. But when it comes to the Arctic, it should break from its Super Atlanticist tradition. In April Russia’s ambassador to Denmark told the Danish press that the United States had adopted a “policy of confrontation” in the region. This statement may have signaled Russian opposition to Denmark’s coevolving foreign policy priorities with the United States. If Russia were to lump Denmark into a single threat with the United States, it could further sour the relatively cool relations between Moscow and Copenhagen. Maintaining cooperative relations is critical to keeping the world’s most delicate region conflict-free. 

Copenhagen will probably reassess its foreign policy priorities in the Arctic depending on the outcome of the United States election. If Trump wins, he will probably continue elevating confrontational rhetoric. But the implications of a Joe Biden victory are less clear. While the former vice president has laid out general climate change goals, he has not addressed the security situation in the Arctic specifically. At the same time, Biden has become tougher on China. His resulting policy might resemble what U.S. Arctic policy has historically been: a focus on environmental cooperation while minimizing the likelihood of strategic conflict.

Regardless of the result, Denmark should drop the “Super” from “Super Atlanticist.” President Trump’s “America First” security policy may be an aberration in the modern age, but there is no way of knowing whether this policy could return. Over his four years in office, Trump has desecrated America’s global leadership role so much that Denmark—or any country—should rely less on Washington to set the agenda.

Denmark should continue to cooperate with the United States on contingency operations and monitoring Russia’s and China’s activities in the Arctic. But it should not overly commit itself to advancing the goals of another country or succumbing to external pressure. In past out-of-area operations such as Afghanistan, Denmark relied on the United States to lead the way. But within its neighborhood, it has the knowledge and sovereign obligation to self-direct. Denmark should use a Danish approach to find a middle ground: a longstanding active foreign policy that promotes sustainability, human rights, and cooperation around the world. While, at the same time, it should maintain military cooperation with the United States as the ‘tip of the spear.’ As the European Union’s only coastal Arctic nation, Denmark should lead in harmonizing the EU’s outdated Arctic policy, and help determine how much engagement the bloc should have in the region. In the Arctic Council, Denmark should maintain its commitment to international cooperation and push for the EU to gain observer status.

Copenhagen should strengthen relations with Greenland to ensure that foreign investment comes from countries that also promote peace and cooperation in the Arctic. It should also take the lead in creating a security dialogue for the North Atlantic, bringing in Russia and the other North Atlantic littoral nations, namely Iceland and Norway, and inviting Washington to be an observer. This would signal to the United States that Denmark is in control of its neighborhood.

Maintaining a stable Arctic region is in the best interest of the entire international community. Denmark, with its centuries of High North experience from the Vikings to the famed Sirius Sled Patrol, should take a leadership role in ensuring the Arctic remains a zone of peace and cooperation.