Greenland Debate: Self-Rule, NATO, and U.S. Pressure (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Well, joining me now is a member of Greenland's parliament, Kuno Fenker. Thanks so much for taking the time. Thank you. The last time we spoke, you said that you did not interpret President Trump's remarks to that time as a threat to use military force against Greenland or Denmark. Now you have multiple administration officials on the record saying that options up to and including military force are on the table. What's your reaction to hearing that?

[00:00:31] Speaker 2: Well, I don't want to fearmonger people anymore, and I will say that if I listen carefully to what they're saying is that if Russians, Chinese or any other adversaries for the hegemon, the United States is here or in Greenland or make some, maybe getting too close to Greenland in regards to minerals, oil, gas, whatever, then they wouldn't rule out military force. Of course, the number one hegemon in the world will have to say that.

[00:01:09] Speaker 1: Well, to be clear, he was talking about military force, not against Russia or China, but possible military pressure to force Denmark or Greenland to give up its own sovereignty. What's your reaction to that? If the U.S. president were to order military forces to pressure Greenland to join the United States?

[00:01:35] Speaker 2: Again, I don't buy that narrative at all, and I'm a little bit sick and tired of hearing that actually. So I will say that Greenland and Denmark has to be diplomatic. I think the reaction, which is like a child in tantrum, should stop, and then we should take some official contact with the United States and speak with them directly on what their concerns are and what the possibilities are. Greenland wants the independence, which we want our sovereign country back from the annexation that Denmark did in 1953. So the possibility of a compact of free association that the United States is open about, as I can hear, is a democratic process that they also did in Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands in the decolonization process. So that is, in my opinion, a positive aspect.

[00:02:33] Speaker 1: Okay. To be clear, I'm quoting the actual words of the president and White House officials. I'm not making them up. According to polling, 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose joining the U.S. Are you in a minority there supporting some sort of negotiation along these lines?

[00:02:53] Speaker 2: I think what we have is a clear rule, which is the Article 21 for our external self-determination, and we will, from our party, adhere to that absolutely. And what we have here is a negotiation that will soon start if we activate it. And then we will start negotiations with Denmark. And if there is a possibility for a leverage, and if the United States is coming up with some kind of an offer, why should we take it off the table? We have to see what's on the table and see what we can present the people in a democratic plebiscite.

[00:03:34] Speaker 1: As you know, the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement already gives the U.S. broad rights in Greenland, troops, bases, operational control. What exactly is lacking in terms of security for Greenland, given that that agreement already exists, not to mention the NATO agreement, which would mean that any attack on Greenland, given its territory of a NATO ally, Denmark, would require defense by the U.S.? What is missing, in your view, in terms of Greenland security?

[00:04:09] Speaker 2: Yeah, the agreement with Denmark is from 1951, and Denmark made that without the consent of Greenland, and that was while we were still a colony of Denmark. So that has not been – it's been amended a little bit, so it's sort of a trilateral agreement. Greenland is not a sovereign state, so we don't have a direct say in that. Denmark has a prerogative in foreign politics. So what is needed here is that in 2009, the prime minister of Denmark promised the United States that they will up the ante in regards to the budget and defending, and also the military budget in Greenland. They haven't done so, so that is what is lacking. And also, yes, the United States has the possibility to put up the military equipment that they would require, but in the consent of the Greenlandic people, in my opinion. But we are a bit tired of going through Denmark all the time, and we need to have a direct talk with the United States, and also the United States can give us security guarantees. I don't think anyone else can do that.

[00:05:25] Speaker 1: So you don't believe the NATO treaty, which already requires mutual defense, and given that Greenland is part of Denmark's sovereign territory, and Denmark is a treaty ally of the United States, you don't think that's a sufficient defense for Greenland? Not to mention that the U.S. military force is already based there?

[00:05:45] Speaker 2: It could be a discussion. I don't know. But NATO has changed a lot. We know that many countries have gone into NATO since when they started, and the geopolitical situation is absolutely different from back then. So we know that we have to do something now, and what we don't need to do is to be unfriendly and towards the United States, which is the biggest part of NATO.

[00:06:15] Speaker 1: Do you consider it friendly for the United States to talk about forcefully acquiring Greenland? Those are the direct words of the President and his advisors.

[00:06:26] Speaker 2: There are many words being said here. I will stick to the positive side, which is Greenland has the right to self-determination. They would welcome Greenland to the United States. And also, many comments here have already been spoken by the special envoy and so forth that they will not use military force against Greenland or Denmark, but it will be if there is an adversary in the area that needs to be taken care of.

[00:06:56] Speaker 1: I would recommend you read the remarks of the President and the White House spokesperson today because they were quite different. Kuno Fenker, thanks so much for joining.

[00:07:05] Speaker 2: Well, I haven't seen it. Yeah.

[00:07:07] Speaker 1: Thanks.

[00:07:08] Speaker 3: Greenland is not taking military force off the table, saying in part this. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal. And of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander in chief's disposal. Among a host of very serious issues here now, Greenland is a territory under the Kingdom of Denmark, a NATO ally. On Capitol Hill, this notion has sparked bipartisan backlash. CNN's Elena Train is live at the White House for us this morning. What more are you learning about the options, as the White House is saying it, that they are considering now?

[00:07:51] Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that statement from the White House press secretary, Caroline Leavitt, set off alarm bells among many people on Capitol Hill and, of course, allies across the world, particularly the United States NATO allies, who have been very wary of this. I know that Senator Mark Warner, for example, earlier said that when he had heard the president talking about wanting Greenland, he thought that he was joking. But it is clear with the rhetoric they are using, particularly, of course, in the days after the capture of Maduro on Saturday, the strikes in Venezuela's capital, that this is very much a serious thing. And I think that statement saying that they are reserving the right to use the military to try and obtain Greenland is what is most concerning to people. Now, I do want to add as well what — just reemphasize what you said about Marco Rubio, what he told The Journal, which is essentially telling lawmakers on Capitol Hill that their goal is to buy Greenland, not invade it. Of course, we have heard repeatedly from the leader of Denmark that Greenland is not for sale. But I want you to listen to some of what we have heard from Republicans and Democrats alike, including the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, on this very issue.

[00:09:05] Speaker 5: Ultimately, the people of Greenland would have to vote, and potentially Denmark. I'm not sure who would have to vote. But you won't get there by insulting them.

[00:09:13] Speaker 6: Sure, it would be good for U.S. national security, but it would also be illegal. Denmark owns Greenland, and we can't just invade a NATO country. That is insane, and the president has no justification for doing so.

[00:09:29] Speaker 4: Now, Kate, to give you some sense of what I'm hearing in my conversations with people in that building behind me, part of the reason Greenland is such a big desire for the president — I'd remind you, he talked a lot about this actually during his first term as well — it's because of the Russian and Chinese aggression in the Arctic region, and the president argues the U.S. could protect that territory better than Denmark can. But, of course, one of the big concerns is what those lawmakers are highlighting, this idea that it is part of NATO, and that this would completely undermine the NATO alliance, throwing the U.S. and its allies in this longstanding agreement into disarray. So that is really one of the huge concerns and potential fallouts of something like this, a move of this magnitude. I will also just point you, Kate, to what we had heard from some of the leaders of other NATO countries, places like France, Denmark, the Netherlands, all of them putting out a joint statement yesterday, making very clear that this is a territory that NATO wants to defend, that European allies who are part of NATO want to defend, and that is part of their sovereign territory, and that this would be a huge undermining of the agreement. So keep that in mind throughout all this coverage.