Harder and Krunke’s analysis aims to understand whether and how diplomatic threats in the realm of “digital diplomacy 2.0”, called “extreme diplomacy”, can lead to an extension of political sovereignty for non-sovereign territories. The case chosen for the analysis is the crisis between the USA and Denmark over the control of Greenland. In particular, after analysing the legal basis of the relationship between Denmark and Greenland and between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States concerning Greenland, the authors try to understand whether President Trump’s claims about retaining control over the island can be referred to as a “diplomatic extreme” and whether they were used by Greenlandic leaders to increase their powers and prerogatives over foreign, defence and security policies, through a process known as “securitisation”.
To begin with, the legal basis governing the relationship between Denmark and Greenland is the Danish Constitution and, since 2009, the Self-Government Act. The former explicitly binds Greenland to the principles and rules laid down by the Constitution, as set out in its articles, starting with Art. 1, which maintains that the Danish Constitution “applies to all parts of the Danish Realm”, which is composed of Denmark, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Although the same document establishes that certain policy areas cannot be transferred to the Greenlandic authorities (among others, foreign, security and defence policies), practice shows an increasing involvement of Greenland in issues concerning its territory and interests. Therefore, even though Denmark still retains charge of these matters, it is also true that, over time, Greenland has been able to extend its room for manoeuvring in decision-making. So, legally speaking, President Trump’s claims about taking control of Greenland are defined by the authors as a “diplomatic extreme”, since they do not take into account the Danish Constitution and the Self-Government Act.
As for the relationship between the Kingdom of Denmark and the USA with regard to Greenland, the authors found numerous documents in which Washington acknowledged and recognised the Danish sovereignty over the island, some of them dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. Most importantly, the Danish sovereignty over Greenland is explicitly stated in the “Defence of Greenland: Agreement Between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark” concluded between the two countries in 1951. According to the Agreement, the US, recognising Greenland as part of the Danish Realm, is entitled to take appropriate measures, in agreement with the Danish Government, to guarantee the security and the defence of the island, within the NATO framework. Accordingly, the US President’s claim that the US needs to control Greenland to protect itself can be described as a “diplomatic extreme” since the legal instruments already in place allow Washington to operate accordingly.
Finally, concerning securitisation (the characterisation of Trump’s claims as threats), a key distinction emerges between the discourse of the Greenlandic leaders and that of the Danish Prime Minister and its Foreign Minister. For the Greenlandic authorities, the “we” towards which the American President’s words represent a threat refers to the Greenlandic people and their unity, highlighting the risks of division within the society; for the Danish officials, instead, “we” is linked to the Danish Realm or Greenlanders and Danes considered as one people. In both cases, it has been found that the moral audience accepted the political securitisation of the US President’s claims, as several polls about the perceptions of the US as an ally show.
However, contrary to the initial hypothesis, the research shows that the securitisation process did not lead to expanded Greenlandic competences in the fields of foreign, defence and security policy. This suggests that the island’s officials have felt included in Denmark’s actions, as the frequent inclusion of the Greenlandic point of view in Danish government officials’ communication seems to show.
In conclusion, over the past decades, Greenland has been able to increase its competences in policy areas assigned by the Danish Constitution to the Danish Government. However, even though President Trump’s claims about gaining control over Greenland can be defined as a “diplomatic extreme” and the securitisation of his claims was successful, this did not result in an enlargement of Greenlandic prerogatives.
This article is edited by Mattia Turello, based on the paper “Diplomatic Extremes and Constitutionalism: The Case of the United States, Greenland, and Denmark.”