Source The Hindu
Washington: Former U.S. President Donald Trump has once again stirred controversy within the transatlantic alliance, this time by reviving his interest in Greenland — a move that critics say risks deepening divisions within NATO and undermining alliance unity.
Greenland, the world’s largest island, is an autonomous territory of Denmark and holds immense strategic value due to its location in the Arctic, abundant natural resources, and growing importance amid climate change and great-power competition. Trump had first floated the idea of acquiring Greenland during his presidency, an overture that was swiftly rejected by Denmark and met with disbelief across Europe.
Now, as Trump intensifies his rhetoric ahead of a possible return to the White House, his renewed focus on Greenland has raised alarm among NATO allies. Analysts argue that pressuring Denmark — a fellow NATO member — over sovereignty issues risks pitting alliance members against one another at a time when unity is considered crucial, particularly in the face of challenges from Russia and China.
Trump has long criticized NATO members for what he calls insufficient defense spending, often singling out European allies for “free-riding” on U.S. security guarantees. By revisiting the Greenland issue, he appears to be extending this confrontational approach beyond budget disputes into questions of territory and influence.
Danish officials have reiterated that Greenland is not for sale, emphasizing the island’s right to self-determination and Denmark’s commitment to NATO. Greenland’s own leaders have also made clear that decisions about the island’s future rest with its people, not foreign powers.
Diplomats warn that such rhetoric could weaken trust within NATO and distract from shared security priorities, including the war in Ukraine, Arctic militarization, and emerging cyber threats. “When NATO members start openly pressuring each other, it plays directly into the hands of adversaries who benefit from a divided alliance,” said a European security official.
Supporters of Trump argue that his approach reflects a hard-nosed realism aimed at securing U.S. strategic interests in the Arctic, a region increasingly contested by global powers. They contend that Greenland’s location makes it vital for missile defense, surveillance, and access to future shipping routes.
Still, many experts believe that turning strategic ambition into public confrontation with allies carries long-term risks. As NATO approaches a critical phase in its evolution, Trump’s Greenland fixation has become a symbol of a broader concern: that alliance cohesion could once again be tested from within, not just by external threats.
