Greenland: A European declaration without ships or deterrence

The European declaration on Greenland: signatures, not fleets

Several capitals in Europe have signed a joint declaration regarding Greenland. The text supports Denmark's sovereignty over the planet’s largest island and rejects any change of status by fait accompli, while being in direct conflict with Washington over its control. The document can be read in three minutes. And in those three minutes, there is no mention of a single vessel, combat aircraft, or anti-aircraft battery destined for the island.

It is always the same pattern: much signing and no means. The question hanging over the issue is not what the communiqué says, but what happens the day someone truly moves a piece.

What does the joint declaration of European countries on Greenland say?

It basically says that the island is Danish and that no one should change that status quo. Formal support for Copenhagen is unanimous and cheap: it commits no military capabilities nor timelines. Hence, the most repeated reaction is the same question phrased differently: and what if the moment comes?

The most widespread analysis holds that, should the scenario heat up, Denmark is left alone with its communiqué. Europe signs the protest but does not back it up with physical presence on the ground. And without a presence, a declaration is merely a press release.

Greenland does not vote in Brussels: whom the European declaration binds

Greenland is a self-governing Danish territory that is not part of the European Union and has its own decision-making capacity regarding its status. Translated: the European capitals offer an opinion on the island with exactly the same institutional weight that the White House can muster. No more, no less.

There is a current of analysis that goes further and denies the subject of the declaration itself: it holds that Europe does not exist as a single actor, never will, and its economic and productive weight has been fading until membership in the club became unappealing.

Adding to this is a paradox that no one has resolved: the island is within NATO's umbrella. That is, when the country that founded the alliance militarily pressures another member, it leaves the collective defense article in an uncomfortable grey area.

Nuclear deterrence: France holds the keys and no one will turn them for Denmark

The European nuclear arsenal is French, not communal. And Paris will not throw a fit over a Danish Arctic island, no matter how strategic it may be. That is the most solid consensus of the entire matter.

From this arise the maximalist proposals repeated in geopolitical forums: nuclear deterrence for all relevant European partners, intercontinental missiles, and a doctrine of public, savage, and credible retaliation. The underlying argument is that an external umbrella closes when it suits the owner of the umbrella.

The counter-argument is that the problem is not material, but political: there is capacity for deterrence, but no will to use it.

The precedent of Perejil, Sahara and Ceuta: why Spain watches nervously

The historical comparison running through this matter is uncomfortable for everyone. When Segarro moved on the Perejil islet in 2003, there was no joint declaration from European countries. Nor when Spain shifted its position on Western Sahara, setting a precedent for Ceuta and Melilla and the Canary Islands.

On the Danish pavement, it is recalled that Copenhagen did not protest when Spain lost Cuba and Philippines in 1898. The corollary drawn is simple: everyone watches their own backyard, and Greenland's remains 3,000 kilometers away from the rest.

5% of GDP in defense and back doors: what autonomy would cost

Another line of analysis holds that this entire episode comes free from Washington: it forces Europe to spend nearly 5% of its GDP defending against external threats, while the American power focuses on China. A win-win for the US, with the rest of the world outside the spotlight.

Aside from spending, some point out a less discussed problem: technological dependence. Aviation, communications, and software come from outside, with foreign protocols and constant monitoring. Hence the proposal of a European operating system, proprietary hardware, and even a parallel network. Whoever controls the protocol, controls the switch.

---

The fact remains that Denmark once sold territory to the United States: the Danish West Indies, during World War I, for next to nothing. The buyer has not changed. Nor has the seller.