The mantra 'Make America Great Again' is taking a new form in Trump's second term. Recently, the US forces executed a military operation to seize Venezuelan leadership in a bid to harness its resources. Now, Washington's eyes are set on Greenland. Initially, Trump's administration opted for sweet-talk diplomacy, but it's now evident that the options stand as either purchasing Greenland or deploying military might to protect the Arctic expanse from adversaries.
The Current Situation in Greenland
It is the world's largest island, mostly blanketed in thick ice. With a population of just under 60,000 people, Greenland manages its domestic affairs but remains a part of Denmark. Trump has long insisted Denmark hand over Greenland. Several challenges arise here. Neither the Danish government nor the Greenlanders wish to join the US. However, Trump is promising incentives appealing to a vulnerable nation.
Greenland lacks its own military, and Denmark's forces are ill-equipped against the US. On the surface, Greenland appears defenseless, but that's not entirely true. If the US were to act aggressively against this icy territory, NATO members might stand against it. These countries, allies within NATO, could fracture and turn on each other.
An existing facility, the Thule Air Base, is a shared venture between the US and Denmark, both founding NATO members, which is heralded as the most powerful military alliance globally.
Source: aajtak
European and Canadian leaders are favoring Denmark and Greenland. Thus, if America attempts to seize Greenland, it would mark an unprecedented event in NATO history, threatening its unity and challenging Article 5, which was established to shield from external threats.
The Shielding Article of NATO
Article 5 is the backbone of NATO, asserting that an attack on one member is an attack on all, warranting collective retaliation. In 2001, post the 9/11 attacks, Article 5 was evoked, promoting support for the US, although direct combat didn't stem, and the US spearheaded tactful counteractions.
What Modern Challenges Does Article 5 Face?
In recent years, doubts have bubbled concerning Article 5. How would it respond if a member nation turned on another? It was designed against external aggression, yet concerns rise if the US confronted Greenland and Denmark. Would unanimous member consent invoke Article 5, especially amidst conflicting member interests?
NATO can pivot in member conflicts, aligning defensively against internal threats. However, given the growing rift between Europe and the US, advanced deliberations and actions could ensue.
Source: aajtak
Formed in 1949, NATO stands as a formidable military pact, encompassing 32 nations. Historical rivalries have surfaced, yet they resolved without warfare. - From the 1950s, UK and Iceland squabbled over fisheries for two decades. - European NATO members disapproved of the US during the Vietnam conflict. - Greece and Turkey clashed over Cyprus in 1974. - During the 2003 Iraq invasion, European divisions were apparent.
These tensions never culminated in full-scale war, however, some notably close, especially Greece vs. Turkey's interactions over Cyprus in 1974. Despite NATO's inability to halt Turkey, Greece distanced itself militarily for nearly six years.
The Vietnam era mirrored similar dynamics, as NATO preferred peace. Frustrated France withdrew from NATO's military chain, fearing unwanted involvement. Not until 43 years later, in 2009, did France rejoin.
What Lies Ahead?
In his first term, Trump rattled ties hinting at NATO departure, highlighting disproportionate US contributions versus other members’ commitments. With the Greenland matter pressing, America demands ownership at any cost, with military action looming if Denmark resists. This could spur nations to back US security. Whatever unfolds, testing NATO’s resilience and unity beyond historical disputes.
