Analysis: Why what happens in Greenland matters

The snap elections for the parliament of Greenland last Tuesday (6 April 2021) attracted unusual interest from major powers who have been watching the political and economic impact of the election results on their interests in the Arctic region. Among them, the Chinese, who have invested in the Kvanefjeld mine on the island. Maximiliaan van Lange analyses the background to the recent Greenlandic general elections, and the island's geostrategic position in the Arctic in this article for commonspace.eu.

Last Tuesday (6 April 2021), general elections were held in Greenland so that a new government could be formed. The reason for these snap elections was the failure of Greenlandic Prime Minister, Kim Kielsen, to form a new coalition government, leading the parliament of Greenland to agree to early elections. Normally, such elections only attract interest in Greenland's mother country, Denmark, but with 56,000 inhabitants and 40,000 people entitled to vote, the future position of the world's largest island appeared at risk. Greenland is an autonomous Danish dependent territory with limited self-government and its own parliament with 31 seats, the Inatsisartut.

Greenland's economy is dependent on fishing and tourism, and Danish subsidies. The Danish subsidies will be phased out in the future in line with the increase in revenues from the mining industry. However, due to melting ice – caused by global warming – mining projects for the exploitation of uranium and rare earth elements (REE) by the Perth-based Australian mining company Greenland Minerals, with Chinese investors, became a matter of significant discussion during the elections. In particular, the indigenous Inuit population is against the project for environmental reasons. These environmental concerns are also shared by hunters and fishermen from other communities. Greenland Minerals has already spent more than $100 million preparing the mine, and has proven processing technology through its Chinese partner Shenghe Resources Holding. The Chinese partner, based in Chengdu, owns 9,6 per cent of the Greenland mine holding.

The latest exit poll indicates that the left-wing Inuit Ataqatigiit Party (IA) has won the snap election. To the displeasure of Australia and China, this election result means a provisional halt on new license applications to operate the Kvanefjeld mine and the completion of pilot plant operations. IA is not against mining as such, but against 'dirty mining'. The party fears serious ecological damage from radioactive waste. Supporters of the project in Kvanefjeld, however, see it as a potential source of jobs and prosperity. On Wednesday (7 April 2021), the IA had already pledged to oppose the mining project for the time being after winning the parliamentary elections with more than a third of the votes. The further development of the mining project has thus been put on hold.

Greenland is sending a powerful signal to international mining companies that want to mine the island's unexploited mineral resources. It was not without reason that former President of the United States Donald Trump wanted to buy Greenland two years ago. Trump's interest in Greenland reveals a neo-imperialist vision of American national security strategy characterised by spheres of influence. This is a return to the approaches to international relations that prevailed before 1940 and led to world wars.

Due to Trump's offer, which outraged Denmark, the geopolitical importance of Greenland became the focus of increased attention in the international community. After all, China dominates the global market for REEs - an essential Trump justification for the trade conflict with the United States (US). The Kvanefjeld mine could become one of China's most vital sources of rare earth elements outside the country. 

Rare earth elements are critical to a wide range of modern technologies, including electric cars, wind turbines, and electronic chips. China produces nearly 60 per cent of all REEs, and processes 95 per cent. In the US, 80 per cent of these indispensable raw materials come from China, and in the European Union (EU) as much as 90 per cent. Even though production has increased in other countries in recent years, China has a particularly effective means of leveraging power here. This predominance of China is a key factor in overtaking the US to become the world's largest economy.

International interest in Greenland also increases as the major powers – the US, China and Russia – rush to establish their presence in the Arctic region. The administration of the new US President, Joe Biden, already declared in early 2021 that they will review vital US supplies, including REEs, to ensure that other countries cannot weaponise them against the US. This applies also to the EU, which needs to develop alternative sources of REEs to reduce its dependence on China. REEs are of crucial importance to Europe’s economy. For the EU, reliable and unhindered access to certain materials is a growing concern. It is not without reason that the European Commission has drawn up a list of critical raw materials for the EU, which is regularly reviewed and updated.

This also highlights why Greenland has not signed the Paris Climate Agreement, which came into force in 2016. The treaty lets states determine their own measures to meet the common goal of keeping global warming below two degrees Celsius. Keeping this agreement open is meant to enable large-scale mining in Greenland, according to Arctic specialist Marc Jacobsen. Greenland wants to grow its economy by developing fishing, agriculture and tourism, as well as mining in the southern part of the island.

Greenland is on the front line of global warming, with a record loss of ice every year. The retreating ice has increased the possibility of mining and allowed container ships to pass more easily through the Arctic, which could shorten global shipping routes. It presents a challenge for Western countries seeking to counterbalance Russia's military build-up in the Arctic. The existing treaty between Denmark and Greenland permits the US to have facilities on the island and to expand them, as well as to access scarce raw materials, provided that it engages in dialogue with Denmark.

Greenland can in the future play a key role in the EU's Arctic policy, and its strategy to be less dependent on China for materials such as Rare Earth Elements. The European Commission needs to work closely with the member state of Denmark in this direction.

Source: Maximiliaan van Lange is Senior Research Associate on Safety, Security and Transparency in the EU and beyond at LINKS Europe Foundation and is part of the research team at commonspace.eu as a Senior Research Associate.
Photo: Tasiilaq, Greenland (archive picture)

The views expressed in opinion pieces and commentaries do not necessarily reflect the position of commonspace.eu or its partners

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)