Greenland elections to be closely watched by the world
Nuuk: In normal times, this election probably wouldn't be of too much interest to the rest of the world. Around 40,000 voters will choose just 31 parliamentarians, and it will all take place on an island that isn't even fully autonomous.
But these are not normal times and this election is in Greenland, which means it could prove a starting point for further geopolitical upheaval in the Northern Hemisphere.
Firstly, because supporters of independence for Greenland hope the ballot may result in a strong mandate for Greenland's complete separation from Denmark. Currently Greenland, a former Danish colony, is a self-governing territory of the latter.
And secondly, and probably most importantly, because US President Donald Trump has been talking about making Greenland part of the US ever since he was elected last November.
Greenland's mineral wealth
Trump has frequently spoken of how it would be in the interests of US security to control Greenland. Since the 1950s, the US has run the Pituffik Space Base, in the northwest of Greenland.
It is the Americans' northernmost post and plays a key role in missile warnings and space surveillance. Previously, during the Cold War, it was called the Thule Air Base and was there to send early warnings and initiate defense against potential Soviet attacks.
Other than security issues, economics might also play a part in Trump's claims on Greenland. In the south of Greenland, there are thought to be valuable deposits of oil, gas, gold, uranium and zinc.
Thanks to climate change, which is thawing Greenland's ground out, mining these deposits will eventually become easier.
During his first term in office, in 2019, Trump offered to buy Greenland. The government in Denmark swiftly rejected that.
But this term, Trump has continued to express expansionist intentions, over Canada, the Panama Canal and Gaza, as well as Greenland.
Even before he took up office in January, Trump sent his son, Donald Trump Jr., to Greenland — although officially he was there as a tourist.
A few weeks later, a poll was published showing that only 6% of Greenlanders wanted their island to become part of the US, while 85% opposed to the idea.
In his speech to Congress early in March, President Trump addressed his desire again, directing his comments to the people of Greenland.
"We strongly support your right to determine your own future," Trump said. But just two sentences later, he seemed to renege on that, stating, "I think we're going to get it [Greenland] — one way or the other, we're going to get it."
Foreign interference?
Given this and upcoming elections, Greenland has had to deal with the possibility that there could be external attempts to influence the country's vote — for instance, from Russia or China, both of whom are also pursuing their own security agendas in the Arctic.
Denmark's national security and intelligence service, PET, warned of Russian disinformation in particular.
"In the weeks preceding the Greenlandic elections' date announcement, several cases of fake profiles were observed on social media, including profiles masquerading as Danish and Greenlandic politicians, which contributed to a polarisation of public opinion," PET stated, although it did not link those accounts to any specific country.
Johan Farkas, an assistant professor in media studies at the University of Copenhagen, is familiar with these kinds of posts as they also circulate in Russian media. But he doesn't think they'd have much impact on Greenland's elections because, besides Danish, most locals speak Greenlandic, an Inuit language.
"Greenland is a very small and tight-knit community in many ways," Farkas told DW. "And so, influencing fake accounts, or these kinds of things that we have seen in the past and in other elections, my assessment is that it's not an easy thing to do."
But that doesn't mean there's nothing to worry about. "My concern as a disinformation researcher has more been around how this plays out in macro-politics. Would we suddenly see Elon Musk hosting live podcast interviews with specific candidates or Trump endorsing specific candidates? That is a very problematic and threatening thing for a free and fair election," Farkas argues, referring to the weeks before Germany's own recent federal election.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
14 minutes ago
- Observer
Trump administration deploys Marines to Los Angeles, vows to intensify migrant raids
The Trump administration on Monday ordered U.S. Marines into Los Angeles and intensified raids on suspected undocumented immigrants, fueling more outrage from street protesters and Democratic leaders who raised concerns over a national crisis. Some 700 Marines based in Southern California were expected to reach Los Angeles Monday night or Tuesday morning, officials said, as part of a federal strategy to quell street demonstrations opposing the immigration raids, which are a part of a signature effort of President Donald Trump's second term. Although their mission to protect federal personnel and property is temporary - filling the gaps until a full contingent of 4,000 National Guard troops can reach Los Angeles - the deployment is an extraordinary use of military force in support of a police operation, and it comes over the objection of state and local leaders who did not request help. Meanwhile, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem pledged to carry out even more operations to round up suspected immigration violators, extending a crackdown that provoked the protests. Trump officials have branded the protests as lawless and blamed state and local Democrats for permitting upheaval and protecting undocumented immigrants with sanctuary cities. The military and federal enforcement operations have further polarized America's two major political parties as Trump, a Republican, threatened to arrest California's Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, for resisting the federal crackdown. California sued the Trump administration to block deployment of the National Guard and the Marines on Monday, arguing that it violates federal law and state sovereignty. The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Jack Reed, said he was "gravely troubled" by Trump's deployment of active-duty Marines. "The president is forcibly overriding the authority of the governor and mayor and using the military as a political weapon. This unprecedented move threatens to turn a tense situation into a national crisis," Reed said. "Since our nation's founding, the American people have been perfectly clear: we do not want the military conducting law enforcement on U.S. soil," he said. The announcement that Marines would be deployed was made on the fourth straight day of protests. Late on Monday police began to disperse hundreds of demonstrators who gathered outside a federal detention center in downtown Los Angeles where immigrants have been held. Police said arrests were being made. National Guard forces had formed a human barricade to keep people out of the building. Then a phalanx of police moved up the street, pushing people from the scene and firing "less lethal" munitions such as gas canisters. Police had used similar tactics since Friday. RARE USE OF MILITARY U.S. Marines are known as the first American forces to establish a beachhead in U.S. military interventions, and as the last forces to leave any occupation. Though military forces have been deployed domestically for major disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the attacks of September 11, 2001, it is extremely rare for troops to be used domestically during civil disturbances. Even without invoking the Insurrection Act, Trump can deploy Marines under certain conditions of law or under his authority as commander in chief. The last time the military was used for direct police action under the Insurrection Act was in 1992, when the California governor at the time asked President George H.W. Bush to help respond to Los Angeles riots over the acquittal of police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King. Newsom contends it is his charge as governor to call in the National Guard, labeling Trump's" action as "an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism." Trump in turn said he supported a suggestion by his border czar Tom Homan that Newsom should be arrested over possible obstruction of his administration's immigration enforcement measures. "I would do it if I were Tom. I think it's great," Trump told reporters.
Observer
29 minutes ago
- Observer
Next Iran-US indirect talks planned for Sunday in Muscat
Iran's foreign ministry has said a new round of nuclear talks with the United States is being planned for Sunday, after President Donald Trump said it was expected on Thursday. "The next round of Iran-US indirect talks is being planned for next Sunday in Muscat," foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said in a statement Tuesday, adding foreign minister and chief negotiator Abbas Araghchi would this week attend the Norway's Oslo Forum, a gathering of conflict mediators. Iran and the United States have held five rounds of talks since April to thrash out a new nuclear deal to replace the 2015 accord with major powers that Trump abandoned during his first term in 2018. On May 31, after the fifth round of talks, Iran said it had received "elements" of a US proposal for a nuclear deal, with Araghchi later saying the text contained "ambiguities". Iran said on Monday the US proposal was "lacking elements" reflective of the previous negotiations and that it would present a "reasonable, logical and balanced" counter-proposal to the United States through mediator Oman. Trump has said new US-Iran talks this week could clarify if a nuclear deal is possible to avoid military action. He added that the latest meeting with Iran was expected Thursday, although a source familiar with preparations said it would more likely be on Friday or Saturday. Iran and the United States have recently been locked in a diplomatic standoff over Iran's uranium enrichment, with Tehran defending it as a "non-negotiable" right and Washington calling it as a "red line". Iran currently enriches uranium to 60 percent, far above the 3.67-percent limit set in the 2015 deal and close though still short of the 90 percent needed for a nuclear warhead. Western countries, including the United States, have long accused Iran of seeking to acquire atomic weapons, while Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.
Observer
10 hours ago
- Observer
The EU can play it cool with Trump's trade threats
Other governments have so far taken three main approaches to dealing with Donald Trump's trade threats. China hit back hard at the US president's tariffs and got him to back down partly. Canada also retaliated and avoided some of the pain Trump inflicted on other countries. Meanwhile, Britain cut a quick deal that favoured the United States. None of these is a model for the European Union. The 27-member group is not China. Though its bilateral goods trade with the United States last year was worth 70% more than between the US and the People's Republic, the EU is not an autocracy that can outpunch Trump. If it antagonises the US president, he might up the stakes by pulling the rug from under Ukraine and undermining the EU's defences. American hard power gives it what geopolitical strategists call 'escalation dominance'. The EU is not Canada either. Ottawa was able to hang tough because its people were infuriated that Trump was trying to blackmail Canada into becoming part of the United States. While anti-Trump sentiment is high in the EU, politicians who are sympathetic to him, such as Poland's new president, can still get elected. On the other hand, the EU is not the United Kingdom. Both are at risk from Russia's invasion of Ukraine. But the EU trades seven times more goods with the United States than Britain does - so Washington has more to lose if economic relations break down. There is another way for the EU to handle Trump's threats: play it cool. That is more or less what the bloc is doing. It involves neither escalating the conflict nor accepting a bad deal. It means being open to a good agreement if the US lowers its demands, but willing to play the long game if it does not. One reason to buy time is to help Kyiv. The longer the EU has to prepare its own support package for Ukraine, which should include getting it a lot of cash, the less the damage if Trump ultimately cuts off all US aid to the country. The president's own vulnerabilities may also increase over time. Just look at the spectacular end of his alliance with Tesla boss Elon Musk. The fragile US trade truce with China may break down causing more financial turmoil, making Trump less keen to pick a fight with the EU. If the Supreme Court stops him using emergency powers to impose tariffs, his negotiating position will be weaker. And tariffs could hurt the US more than its supposed victims, by pushing up inflation and crimping growth. A QUICK DEAL? Trump has zig-zagged in his trade threats and actions against the EU. The current state of play is that there are 50% tariffs on US imports of steel and aluminium from the bloc, a 25% tariff on cars and 10% so-called reciprocal tariffs on most other goods. And so they're trying to be the first and the best to get there, which is why everybody's throwing so much money at it without any clear sense of, you know, The US president has threatened to jack up these reciprocal tariffs to 50% if there is no deal by July 9. He is also looking at more 'sectoral tariffs', including on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors. While the EU has complained to the World Trade Organization (WTO), it has delayed its own retaliation. Its negotiators accept that they are unlikely to overturn the reciprocal tariffs, the Financial Times has reported. The bloc still aims to avoid the sectoral ones. Those on cars and any on pharmaceuticals would hurt it the most. It has dangled the possibility of buying more US equipment and natural gas to get a deal. An agreement on those lines could be good for the EU. It needs to beef up its defences and eliminate its purchases of Russian gas. While it would be best to have its own arms and energy supplies, buying more from the US makes sense as an interim measure. An important nuance, though, is that the EU should reserve the right to take action against the reciprocal tariffs after the WTO issues its verdict, says Ignacio Garcia Bercero, a former senior EU trade official. Such a pact would involve quite a climbdown by Trump. True, arms and gas purchases would narrow the US goods deficit with the EU, which was $236 billion last year. But his administration has a host of other complaints including the bloc's value-added tax and food safety standards as well the digital taxes that some of its members impose on tech giants. It is hard to see the bloc agreeing anything in those areas, says Simon Evenett, professor of geopolitics and strategy at IMD. BACK TO WAR? Although the US side described last week's trade talks with the EU as 'very constructive', discussions could easily break down. The question then is how the bloc would react if Trump imposed higher reciprocal tariffs. The EU has so far imposed no countermeasures. Though it has agreed to tax 21 billion euros of US imports in response to the steel and aluminium tariffs, it has delayed these until July 14 to try to get a deal. The European Commission, its executive arm, is also consulting on taxing a further 95 billion euros of US imports in response to the car tariffs and the reciprocal ones. But added together, these tit-for-tat measures would be equivalent to only a third of the 379 billion euros of EU imports subject to Trump's tariffs. Some analysts think the bloc needs to be tougher. One idea is to crack down on American services, where the US had a 109 billion euro surplus with the EU in 2023. Another is to activate its 'anti-coercion instrument ', which would allow retaliation against US companies operating in the bloc. Yet another is to threaten to ban exports of critical goods, such as the lithographic equipment necessary to make semiconductors. Extreme events may require extreme responses. But for now, the EU should keep its cool. It should not kid itself that it is stronger or more united than it is. It should remember that Trump may get weaker with time. And it should never forget Ukraine. — Reuters Hugo Dixon The writer is Commentator-at-Large for Reuters. He was the founding chair and editor-in-chief of Breakingviews.
