Connect with us

Politics

INTERNATIONAL VIEW – As Trump fights to acquire Greenland, the island’s population assesses its options

Published

on

On the road to independence? A house on the Greenland coast with the flag of the already largely autonomous island. Jensen / Imago

 

Story by Andreas Ernst, Marco Kauffmann Bossart, Andreas Rüesch

 

Perhaps some had doubted his sincerity on the matter. But U.S. President Donald Trump made his intentions clear right at the start of his second term of office: The U.S. is laying claim to Greenland. That is the best solution, Trump said. The U.S. would «get» Greenland, he told reporters. But how? Under international law, the island is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. The president wants to change this: If Copenhagen refuses to sell the resource-rich island, he wants to levy punitive tariffs against the trading nation. Nor has Trump ruled out military pressure. Meanwhile, the Greenlanders are pursuing their own plans.

1. What scenarios are under discussion?

a) Independence

By taking this path, Greenland would give up its status as a largely autonomous region within the Danish kingdom and declare itself to be independent state. Up to today, Copenhagen has determined Greenland’s foreign and defense policy.

b) Integration into the U.S.

In this case, Trump would facilitate the integration of Greenland into the United States. However, in a treaty signed in 1951, the U.S. government pledged to respect Danish sovereignty over Greenland. At the same time, Copenhagen agreed to allow Washington to use the Arctic island for military purposes.

c) Remaining part of the Danish kingdom

Under the status quo, Denmark provides annual transfer payments of around €500 million for the island, which has been largely autonomous since 1979. These subsidies finance around half of the island’s government budget.

d) Loose connection to Denmark

Greenland could emancipate itself more strongly from Denmark. A loose connection between the two is conceivable, similar to the relationship between the United States and the Pacific states of Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands. The three countries are formally independent, but their foreign and security policies are codetermined by Washington. In return, citizens of the three microstates are allowed to work and settle in the United States.

2. How could Greenland be separated from Denmark?

As a first step, Greenland’s 57,000 residents would have to vote in favor of independence from Denmark. Copenhagen has agreed to accept such a verdict. However, Denmark’s population and parliament would also have to approve a withdrawal agreement of this kind.

The so-called Statute of Autonomy of 2009 states that Greenland has the right to seek independence. In 2023, a commission of experts appointed by the government in Nuuk presented a draft constitution outlining the institutional framework for an independent Greenland.

3. What is Greenland’s position on these scenarios?

In a recent survey of Greenland residents jointly conducted by the newspapers Sermitsiaq (Greenland) and Berlingske (Denmark), 85% of respondents were against Greenland becoming part of the United States. Previous surveys have shown that a majority are in favor of independence – provided, however, that Greenland is able to stand on its own two feet economically.

In his latest New Year’s speech, Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede called for the island to shake off the «shackles of colonialism.» The status quo is not an option, he said. However, Egede has also rejected a future under U.S. control: «We don’t want to be Danes or Americans, we want to be Greenlanders,» he said. Many Greenlanders are critical of efforts to exploit their raw materials. This is likely to contribute to their mistrust of Trump’s plans.

Playing in the eternal snow: Almost 80% of the island is covered by an ice sheet. However, global warming is causing the ice to melt at record speed. Reda / UIG / Getty

 

4. What is Denmark doing to keep Greenland?

The Danish government has emphasized that it is up to Greenland to determine its own future. However, it is clear that Copenhagen is eagerly catering to Greenlanders’ sensitivities in response to Trump’s threats. It transfers between 400 million and 500 million euros a year to Nuuk, which roughly corresponds to between one-third and one-half of Greenland’s budget. At the end of January, the Danish government additionally presented a comprehensive action plan aimed at combating discrimination against Greenlanders living in Denmark.

Denmark has also been forced to admit that it has badly neglected the military protection of Greenland in recent years. The four frigates patrolling the waters off the world’s largest island are said to be so decrepit that they frequently break down. To reduce maintenance costs, their sonar systems for detecting submarines have been removed. Copenhagen is now promising new investments totaling the equivalent of 1.8 billion Swiss francs (a bit under $2 billion). The government’s plans also include the procurement of new naval vessels and long-range drones, as well as the modernization of airports so as to enable the deployment of F-35 fighter jets.

A Danish frigate off the coast of Greenland. Denmark has announced new investments to improve the island’s military protection. Ida Marie Odgaard / Scanpix / Reuters

 

5. Does the EU have a say if Greenland decides to secede?

Only indirectly. Greenland’s relationship with the EU is complicated. The island became an integral part of Denmark only in 1953. It previously held the status of a colony. Twenty years afterward, following a referendum in 1973, Denmark joined the European Economic Community (a precursor to the EU). However, the vast majority of Greenlanders voted against this step in the referendum. Greenland itself left the EEC in 1985, having previously wrested the right to self-government from Copenhagen. Since that time, the island has been a special territory for the EU with privileged access to the single market. Its citizens are both Danish and EU citizens.

Nevertheless, the EU will not automatically intervene in a potential secession process. Brussels’ involvement would be possible if secession harmed the interests of Denmark as an EU member state, or if the act jeopardized the stability of Denmark or of the EU as a whole. This might be conceivable in the case of a unilateral or even disputed secession. The Self-Government Act of 2009 requires negotiations on the path to state independence – thus, any separation is meant to take place by mutual agreement. A sovereign Republic of Greenland could then seek new bilateral agreements with the EU.

6. Why is Trump insisting on acquiring the island?

As yet, Trump has not been put off by the negative reactions to his demand. In his very first week in office, he spoke to Denmark’s prime minister on the phone. According to unofficial sources, the conversation was confrontational and aggressive. Trump has not publicly explained exactly why he is so eager to own Greenland. He has simply presented it as a necessity, citing his country’s national interest.

Trump’s supporters point to the strategic location of the island, which lies on the most direct route between Russia and the United States, and serves as a kind of bulwark in front of North America. As a result of climate change, shipping routes that are currently blocked by ice are also likely to open up in the future. On the other hand, Greenland’s raw materials, including zinc, gold, copper and especially rare earths, make the island highly attractive. Rich deposits of oil and gas are also believed to lie under the ice sheet.

Experts argue that the U.S. does not need to own the island in order to protect its strategic interests there. Denmark, a close ally, has allowed the U.S. to maintain a military presence on the island since the 1950s, including at the Pituffik military base, which is important for the early detection of missile launches. Denmark has also prevented major investments from China in Greenland at the request of the United States.

The U.S. military base at Pituffik in the north of Greenland is important for the early detection of missile launches. Thomas Traasdahl / Scanpix / Reuters

 

7. How would Greenland become part of the U.S.?

Trump has not gone into detail on this issue, but has spoken only of «ownership and control.» Some supporters have raised the possibility of making Greenland the 51st state of America. However, this scenario is extremely unlikely. Traditionally, the U.S. has seen little reason to upgrade overseas territories to full states. The only exception to this has been Hawaii, which became the 50th state in 1959, gaining statehood at the same time as Alaska. For the previous 60 years, Hawaii had held only the quasi-colonial status of a «territory.»

Apart from a few uninhabited islands, the U.S. currently has five such territories: two in the Caribbean and three in the Pacific. Unlike the 50 states, overseas territories lack sovereignty of their own, and do not have voting representation in Congress. In most cases, however, their residents are granted American citizenship. The largest territory is the island of Puerto Rico, whose population of 3.2 million is more than that of 18 U.S. states. Nevertheless, many years of efforts to upgrade Puerto Rico’s status have come to naught.

Greenland, with its tiny population of just 57,000, has no realistic chance of becoming the 51st state of the U.S. even if its population wanted this outcome – in part because this would also mean granting the island two senatorial seats and one seat in the House of Representatives, which would amount to a blatant overrepresentation in Congress. If Trump were to incorporate the area into the U.S., Greenlanders would therefore have to adjust to the role of second-class citizens living in a mere territory – which may make the prospect of changing nationality even less attractive.

Latest articles

Global reporting. Swiss-quality journalism.

In today’s increasingly polarized media market, the Switzerland-based NZZ offers a critical and fact-based outside view. We are not in the breaking-news business. We offer thoughtful, well-researched stories and analyses that go behind the headlines to explain relevant events in the U.S., in Europe and worldwide. To produce this work, the NZZ maintains an industry-leading network of expert reporters around the globe who work closely with our main newsroom in Zurich.

Sign up for our free newsletter or follow us on Twitter, Facebook or WhatsApp.

Politics

OHANAEZE YOUTH COUNCIL REPLIES NORTHERN ELDERS FORUM: YES, IGBO YOUTHS WANT BIAFRA

Published

on

 

By Comrade Igboayaka O. Igboayaka

President OHANEZE YOUTH COUNCIL

The Ohanaeze Youth Council (OYC) has formally replied to the recent statement credited to the Northern Elders Forum, wherein they suggested that if Igbo youths truly desire Biafra, the Nigerian government should not stand in their way.

While we acknowledge this rare moment of honesty, OYC states clearly and unequivocally:-Yes — Igbo youths want Biafra. And this desire is not born out of hatred, but out of decades of injustice, exclusion, and systemic oppression.

The agitation for Biafra is the direct consequence of Nigeria’s persistent failure to build an equitable and inclusive federation.

WHY IGBO YOUTHS ARE DEMANDING BIAFRA

Our position is anchored on undeniable realities:-

*1. Political Differences:-Nigeria’s political structure has consistently marginalized the Southeast. Since the return to democracy in 1999, the Igbo nation has been deliberately excluded from key leadership positions, particularly the Presidency and critical security offices. Federal appointments, resource control, and political representation remain grossly imbalanced against Ndigbo.The so-called federal system operates more like a unitary arrangement where certain regions dominate while others are reduced to spectators.*

*2. Social Differences:-Social integration in Nigeria has collapsed. Igbo citizens face profiling, harassment, and selective enforcement of laws across different parts of the country. Peaceful protests in Igboland are met with military brutality, while violent extremism elsewhere often receives negotiation and amnesty.This double standard has deepened alienation among Igbo youths.*

*3. Cultural Differences:-Our language, traditions, and values are neither protected nor promoted within the Nigerian framework. Instead, Igbo culture is routinely undermined and treated as inferior. A nation that fails to respect the cultural identity of its people cannot claim unity.*

*4. Religious Differences:-Religious intolerance has become normalized. Christian communities in the Southeast feel increasingly threatened in a country where religious bias influences policy, security response, and governance. The absence of genuine religious neutrality further widens the divide.*

*5. Ethnic Hate Against Ndigbo:- Anti-Igbo rhetoric has been openly displayed in national discourse. From threats of expulsion to hate speeches and coordinated attacks, Ndigbo have become targets within their own country. Properties belonging to Igbos are often destroyed during crises, with little or no compensation or justice.This persistent hostility sends a clear message;we are not wanted.*

*6. Systemic Marginalization:- From abandoned federal roads to exclusion from major infrastructure projects, from poor seaport development to economic strangulation, the Southeast remains deliberately underdeveloped. Igbo youths graduate into unemployment, poverty, and despair while watching other regions benefit disproportionately from national resources.*

*This is not accidental. It is structural.*

*OUR MESSAGE IS SIMPLE*
*Igbo youths are not asking for war.*

*Igbo youths are asking for dignity.*

*Igbo youths are asking for freedom.*

*Igbo youths are asking for self-determination.*

*If Nigeria cannot guarantee justice, equity, and equal opportunity for all, then the call for Biafra becomes not just legitimate — but inevitable.*

*To the Northern Elders Forum: we appreciate your acknowledgment. Now let the Nigerian state also have the courage to respect the democratic will of a people.*


*You cannot force unity where there is no justice.*

*Powered by OHANAEZE YOUTH COUNCIL (OYC)*

Continue Reading

Politics

FULL LIST: Nigeria now has 21 registered political parties

Published

on

 

The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has approved two new political parties ahead of the 2027 general elections, raising the total number of registered parties in Nigeria to 21.

INEC Chairman, Prof. Joash Amupitan (SAN), announced the approval of the Democratic Leadership Alliance (DLA) and the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) in Abuja on Thursday. While DLA met all statutory requirements, NDC was registered following a Federal High Court order.

Full list of registered political parties in Nigeria:

All Progressives Congress (APC)
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)
Accord (A)
Social Democratic Party (SDP)
Labour Party (LP)
All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA)
African Democratic Congress (ADC)
Boot Party (BP)
Action Democratic Party (ADP)
African Action Congress (AAC)
Action Alliance (AA)
National Rescue Movement (NRM)
Zenith Labour Party (ZLP)
New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP)
Allied Peoples Movement (APM)
Peoples Redemption Party (PRP)
Action Peoples Party (APP)
Young Progressives Party (YPP)
Youth Party (YP)
Democratic Leadership Alliance (DLA) – new
Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) – new

INEC said the new parties were registered as part of efforts to deepen democratic participation and broaden political choices for Nigerians.

Continue Reading

Politics

Nnamdi Kanu appeals conviction, faults terrorism trial

Published

on

Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu. Photo: X/Aloy Ejimakor

The detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a notice of appeal challenging his conviction and multiple sentences imposed by the Federal High Court in Abuja, insisting that the trial was riddled with fundamental legal errors and amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

In the notice of appeal dated February 4, 2026, Kanu said he was appealing against his conviction and sentences on seven counts, including terrorism-related offences, for which he received five life sentences and additional prison terms after being found guilty on November 20, 2025.

“I, Nnamdi Kanu, the Appellant, having been convicted and sentenced… do hereby give notice of appeal against my conviction,” the document stated.

Kanu was convicted for offences including “committing an act preparatory to or in furtherance of an act of terrorism,” “making a broadcast… with intent to intimidate the population,” and “being the leader and member of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a proscribed organisation in Nigeria,” among others.

Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, delivered the judgment on November 20, 2025, sentencing Kanu to five life terms for terrorism-related offences, 20 years’ imprisonment for being the leader of the proscribed IPOB, and five years’ imprisonment with no option of fine for importing a radio transmitter without a licence.

In his grounds of appeal, the IPOB leader accused the trial court of failing to resolve what he described as a “foundational disruption of the original trial process” following the 2017 military operation at his Afara-Ukwu residence.

“The learned trial judge erred in law by failing to resolve the procedural and competence consequences of the foundational disruption of the original trial process in September 2017,” Kanu argued.

He also contended that the court proceeded to trial and judgment while his preliminary objection challenging the competence of the proceedings remained unresolved.

 

“The learned trial judge did not hear or determine the objection,” the appeal document stated, adding that judgment was delivered “while the objection remained pending and undetermined.”

Kanu further faulted the court for delivering judgment while his bail application was still pending, arguing that this affected the fairness of the trial process.

He also claimed that the trial court convicted him under a law that had already been repealed, stating that “the learned trial judge erred in law by convicting and sentencing the Appellant under the Terrorism Prevention (Amendment) Act, 2013, notwithstanding its repeal by the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, prior to judgment.”

Kanu further argued that he was subjected to double jeopardy, contrary to Section 36(9) of the 1999 Constitution, after being retried on facts he said had earlier been nullified by the Court of Appeal.

He also complained that he was denied fair hearing, claiming that he was not allowed to file or present a final written address before judgment was delivered.

Among the reliefs sought, Kanu asked the Court of Appeal to allow the appeal, quash his conviction and sentences, and “discharge and acquit the Appellant in respect of all the counts.”

He also informed the appellate court of his desire to be present at the hearing of the appeal, stating, “I want to be present at the hearing of the appeal because I may be conducting the appeal in person.”

Kanu is currently being held at a correctional facility in Sokoto State, after his application to be transferred to a different facility in either Niger or Nasarawa State was denied.

Continue Reading

Trending