Extract from ABC News
Analysis
Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, has significant geo-strategic importance. (Reuters: Guglielmo Mangiapane)
Air Force One was cruising over the Atlantic towards a NATO summit in June last year when Donald Trump announced his country's U-turn.
The plane kept travelling towards The Hague, but the US president's words signalled an abrupt departure from decades of White House foreign policy norms.
Trump was asked whether he still supported NATO's "article five agreement", which underpins the alliance: if one member is attacked, all other members come to help.
"Uh, depends on your definition," the commander-in-chief said.
"There's numerous definitions of article five, you know that right? But I'm committed to being their friends."
Trump had for years bemoaned the fact the US was contributing more money and resources to NATO than any other country, few observers thought he would publicly undermine the core foundation on which the alliance is built.
Back then, there was a growing sense that while NATO countries and their partners still faced danger from familiar sources like Moscow and Beijing, a newer, less predictable threat to the alliance was growing in Washington DC.
What started as a crack has, in the months since, widened into a chasm.
The latest point of division, is Greenland.
United States Vice-President JD Vance tours a US military base in Greenland last year. (Pool: Jim Watson via Reuters)
Trump has long been fixated on the Arctic island, a semi-autonomous Danish-owned territory that lies off the Atlantic coast of North America.
It's inhabited by less than 60,000 people and holds enormous geo-strategic importance.
For example, the quickest route, for a Russian missile to reach continental parts of the US is over Greenland.
The Pentagon recognised this during the Cold War and established a military base there, that the US still occupies. But it's likely the president is also eying off Greenland's commercial value, its abundance of rare earth minerals and potential gas reserves.
Since his inauguration a year ago, Trump has made veiled threats to the Danish government and signalled an intention to annex the region.
In December, he appointed the US's first ever envoy to Greenland. The decision that enraged politicians in Copenhagen.
This week, seemingly emboldened by US military action in Venezuela — which saw them capture the country's president and first lady — Trump doubled down on his intentions.
"Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place," he said.
"We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security and Denmark is not going to be able to do it I can tell you."
On Tuesday, local time, a White House statement confirmed that the president still has his sights firmly set on capturing Greenland.
"The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the Commander-in-Chief's disposal," it read.
Danish prime minister Mette Fredericksen told a local television network on Monday her country feared any moves to annex Greenland would end NATO.
"If the United States decides to militarily attack another NATO country, then everything would stop — that includes NATO and therefore post-Second World War security," she said.
Later Fredericksen described the US as a "historical ally".
In the delicate dance involved in drafting diplomatic spin, every word in these types of statements is chosen carefully.
Could using "historical" be code for "once was, perhaps no longer"?
Donald Trump has made his thoughts on NATO clear. (Reuters: Kevin Lamarque)
'Nobody is going to fight the US militarily over the future of Greenland'
Even if Trump's latest Greenland threats are empty, it could still be evidence the president is willing to disregard the will of NATO without fear of consequence.
This brazen position may stem from unconventional foreign policy operatives the president has surrounded himself with. One of the most powerful voices in Trump's inner circle is Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller.
Miller openly detests global alliances, including NATO, and is reportedly one of the driving forces behind the US president's apparent fixation on annexing Greenland.
He's been described as a hawkish, uber-conservative insider who's made a career as part of Capitol Hill's hard right.
On Monday, Miller appeared on CNN and fired off a series of comments that would've made anyone watching at the NATO headquarters in Brussels shudder.
"We're a superpower and under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower," he said.
"Nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland."
The comment did nothing to allay European fears that Trump is surrounded by a cabal of advisors that believe the article five security agreement is one big, expensive bluff the US can call.
Professor Stefan Wolff, a global security expert at the University of Birmingham, argued Miller's rhetoric showed the White House had no qualms about taking on long-time allies over Greenland.
"I would find it very hard to believe Europeans would dispatch forces to take on Americans in Greenland," he said.
"Trump's calculations could be, 'I'll take it, let's see what happens, and if that's the end of NATO, so be it.'"
Another prominent voice inside the White House is Special Envoy Steve Witkoff.
Perhaps dismissively, Witkoff is referred to in Washington as Trump's "golf buddy" who shares the president's love of real estate.
The president has become so trusting of his fellow New Yorker that Witkoff is often picked above Secretary of State Marco Rubio to carry out the US's most important and sensitive diplomatic assignments.
This includes peace negotiations with Russia and Ukraine. But he's been described as "sneaky" and a wily salesperson who is secretly contradicting the will of NATO countries in extremely sensitive discussions.
Bloomberg in November reported Witkoff had effectively coached Kremlin figures on how to handle Trump.
It sparked outrage on both sides of the congressional aisle.
Republican Don Bacon said the envoy could no longer be trusted while Democratic congressman Ted Liu called him a "traitor".
Professor Wolff believes Witkoff's approach is merely emblematic of the current US belief that it can conduct foreign policy without the input of historic allies and can "go it alone".
"For better or worse, the US is still the indispensable nation," he said, adding that Mr Trump is pursuing an expansionist foreign policy that harkens back to US presidents in the 1800s.
"One has to ask what will we be left with (if NATO collapses)?
"It'll be Moscow, Beijing and Washington in a 19th-century like global order."
Back when Trump made his initial comments about article five aboard Air Force One, NATO's response was to flatter the president when he arrived at The Hague.
The alliance's secretary general, Mark Rutte, famously referred to him as "Daddy" at a summit where all member nations agreed to up their collective defence spending by hundreds of billions of dollars at the US's request.
On Wednesday, the president was eager to remind followers on his Truth social platform of his successful lobbying in The Hague last year.
A trademark long and rambling post on Trump's account celebrated his efforts to get European countries to spend a higher percentage of their gross domestic product (GDP) on their militaries.
"Remember, for all of those big NATO fans, they were at 2% GDP, and most weren't paying their bills, UNTIL I CAME ALONG. The USA was, foolishly, paying for them! I, respectfully, got them to 5% GDP, AND THEY PAY, immediately.
"Everyone said that couldn't be done, but it could, because, beyond all else, they are all my friends."
It continued: "We will always be there for NATO, even if they won't be there for us."
But despite assurance, many are worried that while Trump is in the Oval Office, the future of NATO isn't a guarantee.
No comments:
Post a Comment