Politics
INTERNATIONAL VIEW – As Trump fights to acquire Greenland, the island’s population assesses its options
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
Electoral Reform: Dino alleges senate’s plot to rig 2027 election
Former lawmaker, Dino Melaye Esq, has raised concerns over the Senate’s reported rejection of the electronic transmission of election results.
The move, according to Melaye, is a clear endorsement of election rigging and an indication of a sinister plan to rig the 2027 elections.
In a statement on Friday, the former lawmaker criticized the Senate’s decision, stating that it undermines the credibility of the electoral process.
The African Democratic Congress, ADC chieftain, also stated that the move opens the door for electoral manipulation and fraud.
He further warned that the rejection of electronic transmission of results is a step backwards for democracy in Nigeria.
Melaye called on lawmakers and citizens to stand up against “this blatant attempt to undermine the will of the people and ensure that future elections are free, fair, and transparent”.
Politics
Electoral Act: Nigerians have every reason to be mad at Senate – Ezekwesili
Former Minister of Education, Oby Ezekwesili, has said Nigerians have every reason to be mad at the Senate over the ongoing debate on e-transmission of election results.
Ezekwesili made this known on Friday when she featured in an interview on Arise Television’s ‘Morning Show’ monitored by DAILY POST.
DAILY POST reports that the Senate on Wednesday turned down a proposed change to Clause 60, Subsection 3, of the Electoral Amendment Bill that aimed to compel the electronic transmission of election results.
Reacting to the matter, Ezekwesili said, “The fundamental issue with the review of the Electoral Act is that the Senate retained the INEC 2022 Act, Section 60 Sub 5.
“This section became infamous for the loophole it provided INEC, causing Nigerians to lose trust. Since the law established that it wasn’t mandatory for INEC to transmit electoral results in real-time, there wasn’t much anyone could say.
“Citizens embraced the opportunity to reform the INEC Act, aiming to address ambiguity and discretionary opportunities for INEC. Yet, the Senate handled it with a “let sleeping dogs lie” approach. The citizens have every reason to be as outraged as they currently are.”
Politics
Electoral act: Senate’s action confirms Nigeria ‘fantastically corrupt’, ‘disgraced’ – Peter Obi
Former Labour Party presidential candidate, Peter Obi, has condemned the Senate’s refusal to make electronic transmission of election results mandatory, saying the move further exposes Nigeria as a fantastically corrupt and disgraced country.
Obi expressed his views in a statement shared on X on Friday, where he accused lawmakers of deliberately weakening Nigeria’s democratic process ahead of the 2027 general elections.
He explained that his reaction came after a brief pause to mourn victims of a deadly tragedy in Kwara State, where over 150 people reportedly lost their lives.
“Let us first pray for the souls of the innocent Nigerians lost in Kwara. That painful incident is why I delayed responding to the shameful development surrounding our electoral system,” he wrote.
Describing the Senate’s decision as intentional and dangerous, Obi said rejecting mandatory electronic transmission was not a simple oversight but a calculated attempt to block transparency.
“The Senate’s open rejection of electronic transmission of results is an unforgivable act of electoral manipulation ahead of 2027,” he said.
According to him, the action strikes at the heart of democracy and raises serious questions about the true purpose of governance in Nigeria.
“This failure to pass a clear safeguard is a direct attack on our democracy. By refusing these transparency measures, the foundation of credible elections is being destroyed. One must ask whether government exists to ensure justice and order or to deliberately create chaos for the benefit of a few.”
The former Anambra State governor linked the post-election controversies of the 2023 general elections to the failure to fully deploy electronic transmission of results, insisting that Nigerians were misled with claims of technical failures.
“
The confusion, disputes and manipulation that followed the 2023 elections were largely due to the refusal to fully implement electronic transmission,” he said.
He added that the so-called system glitch never truly existed.
Obi compared Nigeria’s electoral process with those of other African countries that have embraced technology to improve credibility, lamenting that Nigeria continues to fall behind.
“Many African nations now use electronic transmission to strengthen their democracy. Yet Nigeria, which calls itself the giant of Africa, is moving backwards and dragging the continent along.”
He criticised Nigeria’s leadership class, saying the country’s problems persist not because of a lack of ideas but because of deliberate resistance to meaningful reform.
“We keep organising conferences and writing policy papers about Nigeria’s challenges. But the truth is that the leaders and elite are the real problem. Our refusal to change is pushing the nation backwards into a primitive system of governance.”
Warning of the dangers ahead, Obi said rejecting electronic transmission creates room for confusion and disorder that only serves the interests of a small group.
He also recalled past remarks by foreign leaders who described Nigeria as corrupt, arguing that actions like this continue to justify those statements.
“When a former UK Prime Minister described Nigeria as ‘fantastically corrupt,’ we were offended. When former US President Donald Trump called us a ‘disgraced nation,’ we were angry. But our continued resistance to transparency keeps proving them right.”
Obi warned that Nigerians should not accept a repeat of the electoral irregularities witnessed in 2023.
“Let there be no mistake. The criminality seen in 2023 must not be tolerated in 2027.”
He urged citizens to be ready to defend democracy through lawful and decisive means, while also calling on the international community to closely monitor developments in Nigeria’s electoral process.
“The international community must pay attention to the groundwork being laid for future electoral manipulation, which threatens our democracy and development,” Obi stated.
He concluded by expressing hope that change is still possible if Nigerians take collective responsibility.
“A new Nigeria is possible but only if we all rise and fight for it.”
-
Business1 year ago
US court acquits Air Peace boss, slams Mayfield $4000 fine
-
Trending1 year agoNYA demands release of ‘abducted’ Imo chairman, preaches good governance
-
Politics1 year agoMexico’s new president causes concern just weeks before the US elections
-
Politics1 year agoPutin invites 20 world leaders
-
Politics1 year agoRussia bans imports of agro-products from Kazakhstan after refusal to join BRICS
-
Entertainment1 year ago
Bobrisky falls ill in police custody, rushed to hospital
-
Entertainment1 year ago
Bobrisky transferred from Immigration to FCID, spends night behind bars
-
Education1 year ago
GOVERNOR FUBARA APPOINTS COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR KEN SARO-WIWA POLYTECHNIC BORI
