Greenland dispute tests the transatlantic alliance (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: President Donald Trump says he's going to tell European leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos this week that the United States has to have Greenland. He says it's, quote, imperative for national and world security. We have to have it. They have to have this done.

[00:00:14] Speaker 2: They can't protect it. Denmark, they're wonderful people. And I know the leaders are very good people, but they don't even go there.

[00:00:26] Speaker 1: The relationship between Europe and the US is on a precipice. Even if this Greenland thing went no further, what happens when trust between allies is broken? From the BBC, I'm Tristan Redmond in London. And today on The Global Story, have the last few days done irreparable damage to the transatlantic relationship? I'm here with the BBC's world news correspondent, Joe Inwood. Joe, thank you so much for joining us. A few weeks ago, I was thinking that the Greenland question had kind of disappeared off the diplomatic radar. We haven't heard anything about that in a while. And sure enough, it came back with a great big bang. Can you remind us of how it came back to looming quite so large again so quickly?

[00:01:20] Speaker 3: Yes. So I'm sure people will remember a couple of weeks ago. And it's amazing to think it was actually only just a couple of weeks ago when on a Saturday morning, the US launched this extraordinary military operation in Venezuela, where they basically captured the Venezuelan president Maduro. Now, whatever your view of the US president, it was an extraordinary military operation. And the phrase was used afterwards. He was then going on a geopolitical sugar rush. And we then had him talking about taking action against Colombia, taking action against Cuba. And also in that same conversation, he mentioned owning Greenland. Now, this is something he'd spoken about before. And I think people sort of thought he was just getting maybe a bit carried away here and didn't think anything was going to come of this. But then we got a tweet by the wife of Stephen Miller. He's a key Trump advisor, Katie Miller. And it basically was a map of Greenland with the stars and stripes over it. And it said, soon. And this from here seems to have been, I'm not attributing direct cause and effect, but basically from here, the conversation about the US trying to take over Greenland has come rushing back. And it's led us to where we are today. What does Donald Trump say he actually wants from Greenland? The public argument that the US makes, that Donald Trump makes, is that Greenland is essential for US security. In order for the US to be able to protect itself from Russia, from China, from other Arctic threats, they need to have control of Greenland. They're in the process of trying to, of the early stages of building something, which he calls the Golden Dome. This is a pan-North America anti-missile defence system, like Israel's Iron Dome. And he says that they need to have Greenland to put components here.

[00:03:06] Speaker 1: This isn't the first time, though, that there's been tension between the United States and Europe over Greenland. But it does feel like it's the first time where it's taken on the aspect of a major crisis. What is it that's actually tipped it into the space where we are now?

[00:03:20] Speaker 3: What's clearly different is just how far this argument has gone. Now, if you're to listen to Donald Trump's reasoning, he attributes it to a deployment of a European security mission. Basically, a number of European troops last week went to Greenland. Now, this is in preparation for a bigger mission. And what they were trying to do, when you read their press releases, is reassure the United States. One of the criticisms there's been of Europe is they're not in a position to defend Greenland. They can't protect it against the Russians or the Chinese. And so what they've done is they've sent out a small number of forces to prepare for a big mission to say to the US, look, we are, we're taking this seriously, we can defend Greenland. But how it seems to have been interpreted by Donald Trump, he seems to have interpreted this Operation Arctic Endurance as some sort of operation against the United States. He says their purpose there is unknown, they're playing a risky game. What he seems to be implying is that they have sent troops there to deter him rather than to deter Russia and China. He seems to have used that as his excuse to put these punitive tariffs on, or to propose putting them on. Now, I think it's fair to say, if the European powers were at the point that they were trying to put forces in place to deter American aggression, they might send more than a couple of troops. And it seems to be only the White House that's interpreted the different way.

[00:04:42] Speaker 1: I mean, it feels a bit like a sort of they're damned if they do and damned if they don't, because if they hadn't sent any troops, it's quite conceivable that the United States would have accused them of not taking Greenlandic security seriously enough. So what is Donald Trump's next move?

[00:04:58] Speaker 3: So what we then get is on Saturday, Donald Trump puts out a post on Truth Social, his own social media platform. He basically says, we've subsidised Denmark and all of the countries of the European Union and others for many years by not charging them tariffs or any other forms of remuneration. Now, after centuries, it's time for Denmark to give back. World peace is at stake. China and Russia want Greenland and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it. They currently have two dogsleds as protection. One added recently, only the United States of America under President Donald J. Trump, all in capitals, can play this game and very successfully at that. And it then goes on, and this is the crucial bit, it then goes on to announce that there are going to be tariffs, first of 10% and then ultimately of 25% put on these countries. And this, it is this message on social media that really ramps up the pressure, the war of words. Frankly, you could say the looming economic war between the US and Europe.

[00:05:57] Speaker 1: OK, so in response to all of that, on Saturday, European leaders dispatched ambassadors to meet with each other in Brussels. There was a very interesting piece published by Politico on Monday morning, which talked about how European leaders including Georgia Maloney of Italy, Alexander Stubbe of Finland, Macron in France, Mertz in Germany, Zelensky and the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. We don't know if it's a WhatsApp group or a Signal group, which they use to coordinate their response when Donald Trump does something unexpected. Reportedly, they call it the Washington group. How would you describe the differing approaches that the leaders in that group are taking?

[00:06:42] Speaker 3: Just to remind people, they're called the Washington group because this is the group of leaders that went to Washington shortly with President Zelensky to try and sort of, you know, negotiate on, stand behind him as he went for a meeting with Donald Trump, following on from his disastrous one in February, which we all remember. So that's where the name the Washington group comes from. And I think it's fair to remember and reflect on the fact that this is an astonishingly difficult diplomatic tightrope they are all walking. I mentioned before, Keir Starmer has taken very much the kind of be a Trump whisperer approach to try and get him on side. We've had the flourishing the letter from King Charles to invite him for a state banquet. Macron has also seemingly had a good relationship with him in the past. Maloney, who is a far more of a kind of ideological bedfellow, they have reportedly a very good relationship. In terms of how they've reacted since this has happened, since the Greenland crisis has kind of come up, I think it's fair to say that it's the Danish have taken in some ways the strongest line, understandably, or maybe not surprisingly. Then you've got Macron maybe in the middle. It's reported that he is one of the leaders who's trying to advocate basically retaliatory tariffs. The EU using its very significant economic negotiating muscle to try and put pressure back on the United States. There's something they call it the EU's trade bazooka. Do we know who coined that name, Joe? No, I don't. I don't. It is an excellent one. And it does sort of give you it gives you a slight indication of exactly how serious how serious the consequences would be. It's one of those phrases you hear bandied around a lot. But no, who came up with it? You've got me there. No idea.

[00:08:23] Speaker 1: What exactly is it?

[00:08:25] Speaker 3: It's basically extreme counter tariffs. There's a whole suite of measures. I won't go into all of them now that would allow basically equal economic pressure to be put back onto whoever they're dealing with. They're anti coercion tactics. Basically, they were designed in case China decided it was going to try and coerce the European Union.

[00:08:44] Speaker 1: OK, so that's Macron's proposed approach. But who is actually reining Macron in within that Washington group?

[00:08:52] Speaker 3: I think if we're thinking of this as a scale, we've got Denmark on this side, Macron's here. I think you then come along and you'd say Keir Starmer. It is slightly more conciliatory. He has, as I mentioned before, always had a very good relationship with Donald Trump. He hasn't accused the US of blackmailing. He hasn't said it's going to be the end of NATO. But he was firm in his speech. I think he made it very, very clear that President Trump's ultimate aim was not acceptable. And then I think probably on the most conciliatory end, you'd have someone like Georgia Maloney. And I think she is going to be one of the people who is going to try and find a diplomatic path through this. It's also worth pointing out, of course, they weren't involved in the Operation Arctic Endurance. And so they are not being threatened with these retaliatory tariffs.

[00:09:38] Speaker 1: European leaders are coordinating on their Washington chat group. But as we're talking on Monday, Joe, it doesn't feel like any of these approaches are working, whether conciliatory or much more of a stick approach like Macron's, because things seem to be getting even more tense. There's a report that's coming out of a text message that Donald Trump has sent to the Norwegian prime minister. Can you just talk us through that?

[00:10:11] Speaker 3: Yeah, this is an absolutely extraordinary message. Now, he has sent this to Jonas Støre, who is the Norwegian prime minister. Now, before we go, we should remind people, Norway is the country where the Nobel Peace Prize is based. It's not awarded by the Norwegian government, but it is a Norwegian thing. Now, he sent a text or a letter or some communication to the Norwegian prime minister. And he basically said, your country did not give me the Nobel Peace Prize. Therefore, I don't feel obliged to try and look for peace anymore. And I'm going to act in the US national interest. He linked it. First thing he said, linked his actions over Greenland and a potential change of sort of geopolitical posture to the fact he didn't get given the Nobel Peace Prize. Now, everyone has known for a long time, he's spoken about the fact he feels he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. He talks about all of the conflicts he's solved. There are many people who would dispute that, but it's certainly something he's always said. For him to link it so explicitly, basically saying, I did not get this, and so I will take these future actions, is jaw-dropping stuff, I thought. I mean, he basically said the quiet part out loud. And he then went on to basically say, from now on, since you didn't give it to me, as I said, it's America first. We should say the Norwegian prime minister responded by saying, we don't decide this. And that's accurate. But it does just show the tone that this debate has now taken.

[00:11:40] Speaker 1: Can I just read you some of this text message, Joe? Dear Jonas, Jonas is the Norwegian prime minister, considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped eight wars plus, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of peace. And then he goes on to say, the world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of Greenland. Thank you, President Donald J. Trump. What stands out most for you there, Joe?

[00:12:13] Speaker 3: There's one other point that I thought was quite interesting, if I'm just going to read a little bit here. Denmark cannot protect the land from Russia or China, and why do they have a right of ownership anyway? There are no written documents, although that is, as you say, there are literally agreements between the US and Denmark that recognise their right to Greenland. The 1951 agreement that governs their military bases there is based upon accepting of Denmark's legal ownership of it, or right to it. It's only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there also. This is a letter from a head of state to the leader of an allied government, and the whole tone of it is really quite extraordinary. One of the key things that Donald Trump has said throughout this is that the Americans need to defend this, and the Europeans can't do it. And he's also said that the Americans need to own it to defend it. Now, it is explicitly written into the treaty that the Americans can basically do whatever they like. They can build whatever bases they like. They can dig big harbours. They can fly. They can sail their ships around. There's no restriction on what they can do. And I think the suggestion by the American president that he needs to own it to build his golden dome is not borne out by the text of that treaty, shall we say. They don't need to own it. Whether that has a bearing on the outcome is a different matter.

[00:13:33] Speaker 1: Joe, this isn't the first time since his inauguration and return to the White House that Donald Trump has done something to provoke or antagonise European leaders. And their critics might say that European leaders have struggled to respond in a cohesive, coherent and united fashion. Is there a pattern that's starting to develop here of provocative action by Donald Trump and disunited response by European leaders?

[00:14:10] Speaker 3: I mean, I think we should say the response hasn't always been disunited sometimes, but not always. I think what we've seen over the last year is European leaders trying to maybe persuade themselves, maybe just trying to persuade their population that the relationship between the US and Europe, as we've always known it, is still the same. There's superficial differences, there's presentational differences, but fundamentally doing everything they can to keep the transatlantic alliance in place. You know, when JD Vance turned up to the Munich Security Conference and basically berated European leaders about how the greatest threat to Europe is not, you know, without, it's within, they were offended. They were, you know, they were fairly stony-faced in the auditorium, but they've sort of talked to, they've tried to talk their way through it. They've maintained that this is still the closest relationship. They made it clear that they thought there was still, you know, business as usual. And I think what we've seen in the last 24, 48 hours is a final acceptance that this is not business as usual. I mean, maybe there are some that are still hoping it can be. Maybe they still think that the relationship can go back to some sort of normality, but I think there's probably an increasing number of people that think this US administration is not the same as the administrations that have previously been at the heart of the transatlantic alliance. And maybe when JD Vance said he thinks that the threat to Europe comes from within Europe, that's because they have a fundamentally different worldview. We are seeing strains upon this historic relationship greater than anything it's seen before. And potentially, I mean, the fear is, for people who want to defend it, greater than it can survive.

[00:16:00] Speaker 1: I want to ask you about what happens next, Joe. If you take two possible responses to Donald Trump and say the harshest response is that being proposed by Emmanuel Macron, this so-called bazooka, of trade tariffs and trade restrictions. And on the other hand, maybe the most conciliatory approach might be, say, Georgia Maloney's. She's well known to be close to Donald Trump. What's the worst and best case scenario of how each of those could play out?

[00:16:31] Speaker 3: If you get a complete breakdown, essentially an escalating trade war, that could be economically disastrous for Europe, but very, very significant for the Americans as well. I think it's important in all these conversations to remind ourselves the EU and Europe is a huge economy. It's not as big as the United States, but it is very, very, very significant. They are significant military powers. There are nuclear-armed states there. It's often presented like the Europeans are helpless in this. But the Europeans do have agency here. And if they decide to use it, well, you could see an escalating trade war. And who knows where that could lead? I mean, it is worth pointing out that the phrase, and I'm sure some people won't like this, but the phrase that was used in America is taco, Trump always chickens out. The suggestion was that Donald Trump basically played hardball and then backed down. And we saw not exactly that, but we certainly saw that the trade, the looming trade war with China didn't go as far as it could. So all of this is speculation, but you could imagine a situation where the EU decides to play hardball to escalate a trade war, and then you get some sort of backing down. Or you could see a breakdown in the transatlantic relationship. I mean, those are distinct possibilities.

[00:17:46] Speaker 1: What about the Maloney approach, which might be more conciliatory? I mean, for example, does Donald Trump maybe have a point that the European Union and NATO are unable to do enough to protect Greenland from threats?

[00:18:00] Speaker 3: Even Europe would agree that they basically let their guard down. They relied upon and they got complacent relying upon the American security umbrella. They are trying, I think by 2030 is their deadline, they are trying to rectify that. There's huge militarisation or military buildup in Germany and Poland. The UK has increased its defence budget. So the Europeans are saying they will step up. I think we need to remind ourselves that at the heart of this discussion around Greenland, there is basically two mutually exclusive positions. The Americans say we would like it. The Europeans say you cannot have it. It's quite hard to see how a conciliatory approach finds a middle ground there. Of course, you can have more diplomatic language. But if Donald Trump says we would like this territory and that is our red line, and the Europeans say you cannot have this territory, that is our red line. Well, where is the conciliatory position?

[00:18:53] Speaker 1: The US Treasury Secretary on Sunday spoke out about the Greenland issue and he linked it directly to the question of Ukrainian security. Is there a possibility here that where this all ends up is a kind of grand negotiation where a resolution for Greenland is wrapped up with the question of a resolution for Ukraine and that's how this is all sorted out?

[00:19:19] Speaker 3: I think that's quite difficult to see because in a way, what we'd be seeing there is the suggestion that the Americans say we will get a deal that's acceptable to the Ukrainians if you give us Greenland. Now, firstly, at the moment, the Americans are incapable of finding a deal that's acceptable to the Ukrainians and the Russians. The idea they demand Greenland as a price for that, well, I don't see that as being acceptable to Europe. I mean, I've actually got the quote from Scott Besant here. He was basically asked if Greenland was more important for American security than NATO. He said that was a false choice and this is the bit where he goes to link them. He said the European leaders will come around to the idea of America having Greenland, he meant, and they will understand that they need to be under the US security umbrella. He was basically saying, you know, we've got them over a barrel. I still don't see, I mean, if the Europeans were faced with that invidious choice between abandoning Ukraine or handing over sovereign territory to the United States, I mean, who knows what they would do? But I think that is the point which they've described as being the end of NATO. And I think it really would be, I mean, I don't know how many times I can use the word unprecedented, but even in the context of unprecedented things, that will be even more unprecedented.

[00:20:34] Speaker 1: Could the United States regret alienating allies in Europe, particularly if the Europeans then start to ally themselves more closely with China?

[00:20:45] Speaker 3: I don't think Europe is going to start allying itself with China, but it could start to become more neutral when it comes to the future great power rivalry between America and China. And that would have serious consequences. I mean, one of the things, America is undoubtedly the world's preeminent military superpower, but the reason it's the diplomatic superpower as well is because of its alliances. NATO is the most successful military alliance and the Western alliance has been the most successful diplomatic alliance of the modern world. I think if we pretend that there is not a cost to America of the fracturing or disintegration of this relationship, then, you know, that is not accurate. There would be a huge cost to Europe as well. It's a path of, if not mutual destruction, it's a path of serious mutual damage if the alliance continues to fracture as it is and goes on to break. Joe, thank you so much. My pleasure. Thanks for having me.