In 2019, President Donald Trump offered to purchase Greenland from the Danish government. Embarrassed, the government in Copenhagen rejected the offer because nations are no longer sold in the way the former US president was used to buying New York real estate. What made the offer to buy Greenland particularly awkward was the fact that the United States in certain ways already owns the Arctic island and have done so since the Second World War. Mr Trump’s interest in Greenland probably arose from a briefing the president received about the renewed geopolitical competition in the Arctic and the pivotal role of Greenland in maintaining US interests in the region. In geopolitical terms, Greenland is an American island.

While Greenland constitutes a nation in its own right, and its 57,000 inhabitants are part of the Kingdom of Denmark as an autonomous region heavily subsidized by the Danish government, the island’s 2,166,000 square kilometres has been an integrated part of the North American security architecture since the United States required basing rights from the Danish ambassador in Washington during the Second World War. The US used airbases in Greenland as a refuelling point between North America and Britain, and it was weather data from Greenland that gave Allied commanders confidence to give the go-ahead for operation Overlord (the invasion of Western Europe) in 1944.

During the Cold War, the confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States was bitterly cold in the Arctic. Nuclear submarines remained constantly on patrol in Arctic waters ready to provide a second-strike capability in case of a nuclear war, and a radar station in the furthest north of Greenland provided first waring if the Soviet Union were to launch a nuclear attack on North America. After the end of the Cold War, the Soviet bases in Siberia was neglected. The United States withdrew from its bases in Island and maintained a much smaller footprint in Greenland. US attention was elsewhere – fighting the global war on terror with engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the last ten years, the Arctic has returned on the geopolitical agenda. Russia has reinvested in its Arctic bases, and Russia demonstrated it renewed Arctic engagement with a couple of spectacular exercises in the region, included the landing of Russian paratroopers on the North Pole icesheet. Less spectacular, but equally importantly, China shows an interest in the region. Diplomatically, China sought membership of the Arctic Council, thus using the Arctic to demonstrate that as a true global power China has an interest in every region, however remote from Chinese territory. Economically, Chinese capital backed mining firms that sought rights from the Greenlandic government to develop mining projects – most spectacularly, an iron ore mine in the fjord outside Greenland’s capital city, Nuuk.

China also raised the possibility of financing an airport outside Nuuk as part of the Belt and Road Initiative. Chinas civilian interest in Greenland challenged the traditional division of labour between the Danish and the American government which made Greenland a part of the North American defence architecture while the responsibility for the internal affairs and economic development of the island was left to the Danes in cooperation with the local administration. A Chinese presence in Greenland would clearly have security implications, and the Danish government moved decisively to make sure that the airport was financed by the Danish taxpayers and the Chinese backed mining firms never gained mining concessions.

While the Danish government was shoring up internal security, the United States reasserted its commitment to the region. US marines were stationed in Norway in the aftermath of the Russian incursion into Eastern Ukraine and the US military has begun to reinvest in Arctic capabilities. Yet, the nature of great power competition today is different from during the Cold War. This is especially true in the Arctic where the present great power rivalry is no longer about positioning for a nuclear exchange, but about how to utilise the new lines of communication and the new access to resources made possible by the thawing of the Arctic because of global warming.

The new climate offers the kind of promises which made Viking settlers name the island. At present the costs of extracting resources from Greenland remains prohibitive and even if the ice is losing its grip on the Arctic Sea, the time when containerships can sail from Shanghai to Rotterdam via the Northern Sea Route remains many years in the future. This future offers a powerful vision which great powers want to be part of, and that in turn offers the opportunity for the government of Greenland to deal in geopolitical futures in same way as you would deal in futures on the stock market.

The mere interest from China thus delivered investments from Copenhagen and an increased diplomatic recognition from the United States which opened a consulate in Nuuk (staffed with diplomats from the US embassy in Copenhagen). The Greenlandic government may use the prospect of Chinese involvement as leverage in the future, but the utility of this strategy decreases each time it is used. The Chinese presence in the region is already waning, as the United States reasserts itself.

The increased US interest in Greenland offers the possibility for the government in Nuuk to decrease its dependence on Denmark by dealing with Washington directly. However, it also demonstrates the very limited freedom of action which the government of Greenland in fact has on matters of security and foreign policy. The United States will never tolerate that Greenland moves outside the North American security architecture – whether the island at one point might gain independence from Denmark is a secondary issue from a US perspective.

In geopolitical terms, everything has changed, and everything remains the same for Greenland. The United States firmly controls the island’s geopolitics and has, with Danish cooperation, firmly rejected Chinese attempts to gain a presence on the island. As the prospects for the Arctic region changes Greenland will become more important in the region, but China and Russia will have few prospects for changing the Island geopolitical connection to the United States.   

L'articolo The geopolitical role of Greenland proviene da InsideOver.

During a NATO exercise on Friday, an inciting incident occurred over the Baltic Sea. A Russian fighter jet chased a US bomber into Danish airspace. Only when the Danes sent their F-16 jets into the air did the Russian plane turn back.

Details of the Incursion

During a NATO exercise, a Russian fighter jet chased a US bomber into Danish airspace, triggering an alliance protest. The NATO statement said: “The incident on Friday is the first of its kind in several years and indicates a new level of provocative behavior by Russia.”

An American B-52 bomber took part in the “Allied Sky” exercise on Friday, during which six of these aircraft flew across all 30 NATO member countries in one day. Above the Baltic Sea, the Air Force plane was suddenly accompanied by a Russian SU-27 plane, which followed the US plane over the Danish island of Bornholm. Only when the Danes sent their F-16 jets into the air did the Russian plane turn back.

NATO: ‘Russia is Disregarding International Norms’

NATO’s Allied Air Command put out a statement on the incident on Monday. “This incident shows that Russia is disregarding international norms and the sovereign airspace of an allied nation.” The alliance said it will remain vigilant, prepared, and ready to keep NATO airspace secure “day and night.”

Denmark immediately launched its rapid reaction alarm aircraft to counter the violation. However, the aggressive Russian fighters returned before interception, NATO confirmed and stating that “the unauthorized entry into the sovereign airspace is a serious violation of international law.”

Denmark: Wants to Ensure Similar Incident Doesn’t Recur in Future

Denmark’s Defense Minister Trine Bramsen said on Tuesday regarding the incident that the intrusion into Danish airspace was utterly unacceptable. Denmark will now “as soon as possible” discuss this incident with the Russian authorities, “to avoid repetition.”

Russia has denied the incident. The Russian Su-27 fighter plane used to intercept the US Air Force’s B-52 bomber did not violate Danish airspace and flew over the Baltic Sea’s neutral waters, the Russian state media reported on Monday, citing Tass, a spokesperson for the Russian Defense Ministry. “The Ministry of Defense has denied the North Atlantic Alliance’s statement that the Russian Su-27 fighter violated the Danish border,” the official said, according to Tass.

US-Russian Tensions

The incident occurs amid heightened tensions between the US and Russia. Washington has accused the Russian military of several provocative actions in the past few days, including the unprofessional interception of a US B-52 bomber over the Black Sea and responsibility for a collision between Americans and Russian armored vehicles in Syria in which seven US troops were injured.

When asked about the apparent increase in incidents with the Russians, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo referred to the vehicle collision in Syria on Monday and said the incident was seen last week in which a Russian vehicle deliberately rammed an American vehicle. These were the types of issues that Washington has been monitoring closely while staying in contact with the Russians to say that was unacceptable behavior. Pompeo said that the US will respond to every single incident.

In terms of the incursion over Danish airspace, the Russian plan returned to Kaliningrad, a Russian exclave between Poland and Lithuania that has a significant Russian military presence. Bornholm Island is in the Baltic Sea, less than 90 miles east of Copenhagen. Denmark is one of the Nordic region’s states that has witnessed increased Russian belligerence over these last years, which has put NATO on increased alert.

L'articolo Russian Military Violates NATO Airspace proviene da InsideOver.

Following German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron’s presentation of their plan for the European Union to overcome the economic impact of COVID-19, Austria, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands have now created their own vision of a recovery plan, which carries a simple message: loans in lieu of grants.

What Are the Specifics of the Frugal Four’s Plan?

The aforementioned states are in favour of a one-off emergency fund to strengthen the EU’s economy. Payments must be used for the reconstruction, the ecological restructuring of the EU and the future resilience of the health sector and the economy. Moreover, the funding ought to be subject to a two-year limitation.

Most importantly, the plan strictly opposes shared debts, for example, in the form of eurobonds, and a subsequent increase in the EU’s budget as a result of the latter. Austria, Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands — all net contributors to the EU — refer in their plan to the fact that national budgets had already been heavily burdened due to the COVID-19 crisis, while more funds still needed to be invested.

The solution hence needed to be a “modernized EU budget as a starting point”. The final spending framework of COVID-19 aid ought to be determined “by a new prioritization” of spending areas in the EU budget. Aid that contributed less to economic recovery should, therefore, be saved.

The Merkel-Macron Plan

Just the previous Monday, Chancellor Merkel and President Macron presented a €500 billion concept for a recovery plan for the post-pandemic. According to the Franco-German model, the money ought to be taken up by the EU Commission in the form of loans on the capital market and distributed as non-repayable grants via the EU budget, to support particularly hard-hit countries.

However, especially Austria’s Chancellor Sebastian Kurz had been opposing the Franco-German model over the previous week, and called for a time limit on the funds, to avoid the COVID-19 aid package becoming a “debt union through the back door.”

The plan of the four states, thus, provides for the EU Commission to raise the money for the emergency fund on the financial markets and to pass it on to the member states as affordable loans in lieu of Franco-German grants.

Finding Consensus Amid the Confusion

EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen now faces the difficult task of designing a model that is capable of reaching a consensus. She will present a new proposal for EU finances from 2021 to the end of 2027 next Wednesday, which should also include a recovery plan for the economy badly hit by the corona pandemic.

Von der Leyen is aiming for a volume of at least €1 trillion in her “reconstruction instrument,” relying on a mixture of grants and loans. In this way, the Commission seeks to prevent the member states from drifting apart economically.

In addition to a concept for a reconstruction fund, it is also expected that funds from the multi-year financial framework will be used to boost the economy. A working paper by the EU Commission, for example, proposes to invest €20 billion in a program over the next two years that will encourage consumers to buy clean new cars. Besides, there could be €40 to €60 billion for investments in emission-free drives as well as additional funds for electric charging stations and petrol stations for alternative fuels.

As far as the reconstruction fund is concerned, von der Leyen had recently shown a clear preference for the Franco-German approach. The latter goes in the direction of the proposal the Commission is working on, she said. EU Council President Charles Michel also spoke of a step in the right direction and called for a willingness to compromise from all 27 EU countries.

It will be interesting to see which elements of whose proposal will become part of Von der Leyen’s consensus idea. The issue, meanwhile, is apparent. The Austria connection has categorically ruled out any form of shared debt. However, if mainly the Merkel-Macron model prevails, it will carry significant connotation for the rest, who have long believed that it is France and especially Berlin all along that set the European Union’s policy direction for the rest of the member states.

L'articolo Frugal Four Present Counter-Proposals to Franco-German EU Rescue Plan proviene da InsideOver.

On Saturday, US President Donald Trump said that he will rely on “a lot of facts and instincts” when deciding on the timeline for certain sections of the American economy to reopen during the Covid-19 outbreak. He is torn between ensuring that the economy gets moving again and protecting millions of Americans from the virus.

Fauci: Travel and Gathering Restrictions Must Remain

The head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a leading member of the Trump administration’s coronavirus task force, Anthony Fauci, said that restrictions banning non-essential travel and large gatherings must remain in place.

Some states have announced they are retaining these measures until June despite a substantial surge in unemployment across the country.

Balancing Public Health With Economic Survival

Either way, the American President is presiding over an Opening Our Country Council that will consist of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and Trump’s senior adviser and daughter Ivanka Trump.

Trump has realized that he must strike a balance between preserving the American economy and ensuring millions of US citizens are protected from Covid-19 which has now killed over 20,000 Americans. With an election around the corner, the way Trump leads his country during this dark time will undoubtedly determine his chances of getting re-elected, especially as this could be such a close election.

Why Is Denmark Lifting Its Covid-19 Restrictions?

Nonetheless, some countries are already preparing to return to normal following the coronavirus pandemic. Denmark is about to relax restrictions that its government imposed to tackle Covid-19. From Wednesday, children aged 11 and younger will be returning to schools and nurseries after a month of closures.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said her nation’s moves will be slow and cautious. She likened them to “walking a tightrope.”

Denmark has been able to get to this stage because it introduced numerous measures designed to tackle Covid-19’s spread earlier on. A raft of restrictions was announced on March 11 that included limiting gatherings to 10 people, requesting employees to stay at home, and closing Danish borders.

The Danish Government’s strategy seems to have paid off. The country has only experienced 260 Covid-19 deaths. Total numbers of hospital admissions and patients in intensive care have fallen since the beginning of the month.

Still, Denmark’s lockdown has started to take its toll on many livelihoods and it is unclear when some businesses such as restaurants and pubs can reopen their doors.

If the USA and other nations followed Denmark’s example sooner, they might not have needed to be so heavy-handed with their own lockdown measures.

Iran’s Economy is Being Crippled

Meanwhile, the Iranian Government recently permitted businesses and workers to return to work on Saturday even though the coronavirus continues to heavily impact the nation. The lockdown there has cost the Iranian economy $20–30 billion, some 15 percent of its GDP.

Iranian hospitals need 35,000 beds, approximately 15,000 respirators and 7,000 intensive care units.

As malls prepare to reopen and transport restrictions are lifted, this strategy risks exposing people who are carrying the virus to come into close contact with those who do not.

Iran is different to Denmark for the simple reason that the former’s economy is being crippled by US sanctions. The Trump administration will not lift its sanctions on Tehran as they hope they can devastate the Iranian economy further and topple its government.

The Iranian Government has introduced expensive policies to ease the effects the coronavirus is having on the Iranian economy, such as an economic assistance program to provide about $60 a month to every needy person who is already receiving state subsidies. It is clear that the government has concluded Iran cannot afford to remain in lockdown indefinitely and it is certainly in a weakened position economically compared to many other other nations.

Trump wants the US economy to return to normal, but because of his administration’s slow response to Covid-19, it will be a while before America can catch up with Denmark. Iran is taking a huge gamble by reopening its economy now. The situation shows the difficulty of crucial decisions during the pandemic.

L'articolo Why Some Countries Are Gradually Moving on from Covid-19 proviene da InsideOver.

In August, a Wall Street Journal news article sparked mixed reactions. According to the piece, US President Donald Trump was seriously considering buying Greenland from Denmark. The news initially caused some laughter among actual and former Danish politicians – perhaps because most of them didn’t pay attention to the seriousness of the matter for the Trump Administration.

The topic became a serious one when both White House Economic Adviser Larry Kudlow and President Donald Trump confirmed the idea of purchasing the world’s second largest island, after Australia. This unseen idea of Trump is largely criticized by Danish lawmakers and the debate between Washington and Copenhagen even led the US President to cancel his visit to Denmark. But what is really behind this peculiar action?

It is important to recall that this is not the first attempt to buy Greenland. In 1946, Democratic US President Harry Truman wanted to buy Greenland for $100m, but Danish authorities rejected his offer. Besides, American history is no stranger to these types of deals. In the past, there were historic territory acquisitions, such as the Louisiana purchase from France in 1803 for $15m, the Alaska Purchase from Russia in 1867 for $7.2m and the Danish West Indies purchase, renamed as the Virgin Islands, in 1917 for $25m.

Despite these examples, a possible Greenland purchase would lead to the largest expansion in US history, with 2,166,000 km² of area, exceeding the total acquired area in the Louisiana Purchase (2,100,000 km²). Of course, a large acquisition such as this one would dramatically change the size of the country, guaranteeing the US to become the world’s second largest country behind Russia. Undisputedly, such a deal would give a different type of status to Donald Trump as the President of the United States.

Another important characteristic of Greenland is its geographical position between Eurasia and North America. Such an area may be utile for the United States in many means, such as the military one, despite already having some important military bases, thanks to a previous deal with Denmark. Thule Air Base, which has been running since early 1950s, is perhaps the most important example. The route over the pole is also the shortest flight path for Russian and Chinese missiles and bombers, which adds another strategic aspect to the island. It is also important to underline that Greenland has a unique role in space control. With its Space Warning Squadron and with future development of that field, the Arctic’s role may increase for developing further projects.

Despite the political and legal disputes over the issue, Washington is now moving forward to open a US consulate in Greenland. Of course, the re-establishment of an American consulate, previously operational between 1940-1953, may help United States to boost its influence in the zone. But how should this rapprochement be considered? As initial steps for a diplomatic annexation or a sincere change of mind and a way for the improvement of relations? Such a move, combined with a possible establishment of a commerce office in the island, may guide United States to have a greater economic control in the area. As Donald Trump openly spoke about the existence of mineral resources in Greenland, a possible cooperation in trade may help U.S. to take advantage of Greenland’s commodities such as copper, iron ore, uranium and zinc.

Despite these positive aspects of the Trump Administration’s intentions, the Greenland dream contains too many question marks, because the remarks of Washington seems like they are considering the issue as something bilateral between Washington and Copenhagen, without considering the autonomy of Greenland. Since 2008, Greenland has a greater autonomy compared to the other territories previously acquired by the United States.

Despite strong ties with Denmark, Greenland has its own prime minister and parliament which has power on numerous issues, despite some delicate subjects such as the foreign policy. All these aspects show that a possible US offer also needed to be discussed by lawmakers and locals of Greenland, and maybe it should even need a referendum process. This background makes us understand the words of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen; “Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland.” As we can see, Greenland is much more than a piece of territory for its legal and political status.

As Trump’s idea of purchasing Greenland didn’t have a positive echo among Danish authorities, such a historic move seems to be impossible at this stage. Despite the idea raising some imperialist sentiments around the United States, the international community wasn’t impressed by such a topic, and the case seems to be closed as a simple “war of words”. After a tumultuous period with Denmark, the US President saw that a diplomatic approach, such as opening a consulate and Greenlandic affairs officer, looks more feasible than purchasing the whole island.

On the other hand, maybe these remarks of Trump was just a way of arousing interest from the media and other experts of the Arctic issue. These latest developments showed that the United States is considering getting involved in that area. However, the words of the Trump administration on purchasing Greenland had negative impacts in the island and its NATO Alliance, Denmark. Is it possible for the United States to have an influence in the area, after these skirmishes? It is now up to Trump to save the United States’ credibility within the Arctic and stop the influence of other countries in this region, such as Russia and China, and to try not to harm its ties with other parts of this cooperation, starting with Denmark.

L'articolo Making Greenland Great Again proviene da InsideOver.