logo
Trump's Greenland threats spark Iceland jitters

Trump's Greenland threats spark Iceland jitters

Time of India15-05-2025

Live Events
Subsea infrastructure
Plan B
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
US President Donald Trump's threats to take over Greenland have neighbouring Iceland rethinking its long-term defence, currently provided by the United States and NATO as the volcanic island has no military of its own.Around 74 percent of Icelanders think Trump's interest in Greenland, and in the Arctic in general, pose a threat to their country, according to a recent poll by public broadcaster RUV."We can easily put ourselves in Greenlanders' shoes," an Icelandic member of parliament for the governing Social Democrats, Dagur Eggertsson, told AFP.The White House under Trump has not so far voiced any plans for Iceland, a subarctic island in the North Atlantic between the UK and Greenland and home to 390,000 people.Trump "is threatening Greenland every day but doesn't say a thing about Iceland", said Valur Ingimundarson, a professor of contemporary history at the University of Iceland.He noted that while Iceland shares Greenland's geostrategic location, it does not possess the mineral riches believed to be hidden under Greenland's soil.And like Greenland, Iceland has close military ties with the United States.Washington has guaranteed Iceland's defence since 1951 following an agreement between the two NATO members.During World War II, the Keflavik military base was a key US hub and it remained important to the alliance during the Cold War.The 1951 agreement enables the United States to maintain troops on the island but allows Iceland to set limits on the number of soldiers and to unilaterally cancel the agreement with 18 months' notice.Although the United States officially closed the Keflavik base in 2006, it returned following Russia's 2014 invasion of Crimea."The US military base has not formally been reopened in Iceland, but American troops are here the whole year round, if on a rotational basis," Ingimundarson said.At stake are underwater telecoms and energy infrastructure, at risk of potential Chinese or Russian sabotage.Beijing and Moscow have been increasingly active in the Arctic as climate change opens up sea routes.As a result, no one in Iceland has officially questioned the US presence or Reykjavik's military dependence on Washington."Iceland and the US have a longstanding and close relationship on security and defence matters, based on shared interest in the North Atlantic and the Arctic," the foreign ministry told AFP."There is no reason to assume that this will change."Establishing an Icelandic army has always been a taboo subject."If the government would put it on the agenda, it would result in a divisive public debate, with those opposing the idea most likely having the upper hand," Ingimundarson said.Yet the tide appears to be gradually turning, said Eggertsson, the MP."We are in a time of transformation, where the clear vision from the post-World War years that Europe should not re-arm, but be provided defence under the NATO-US umbrella, is giving way," he said.Advocating a multilateral approach to security, Iceland is now shifting its gaze toward Europe as Trump casts US defence ties with NATO allies into doubt.Given the unpredictability of the Trump administration, "we should have as a plan B (to) try to establish a close relationship with the EU," Ingimundarson said.The foreign ministry has already made it clear that partnerships with the EU "are expected to deepen further in the coming years"."Iceland would definitely support a European NATO if the United States would withdraw from the alliance," Ingimundarson said.That would be an "easier option" than transferring European defence to the EU -- of which Iceland is not a member."It wouldn't necessitate Iceland becoming an EU member, if it would seek to disentangle itself from the US," he said.Iceland launched EU membership negotiations in 2009 following its 2008 economic collapse. The talks were suspended in 2013, but a referendum on their resumption is due in 2027.EU membership would not just be about safeguarding the island's security."It is also about economic prosperity, low tariffs with our biggest trading partners, fisheries and more," Eggertsson said.Fisheries policy would be the biggest stumbling block, with Iceland keen to retain total control over its lucrative fishing zones, a crucial pillar of its economy.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk's dad Errol calls son's Trump feud a ‘just a small thing', predicts it'll be over soon
Elon Musk's dad Errol calls son's Trump feud a ‘just a small thing', predicts it'll be over soon

Mint

time16 minutes ago

  • Mint

Elon Musk's dad Errol calls son's Trump feud a ‘just a small thing', predicts it'll be over soon

Errol Musk, father of billionaire Elon Musk, described his son's recent public clash with President Donald Trump as a 'mistake' and predicted that Trump would ultimately come out on top in the bitter dispute. Errol Musk said the feud was fueled by stress and exhaustion. 'They've been under a lot of stress for five months. And it gives them a break. You know, they've had to get rid of all the opposition, try and put the country back on track, and do normal things and so forth,' he told Russian media, as per daily newspaper Izvestia. Errol added, 'They're very tired and stressed. And so you can expect something like this. It's not unusual.' The elder Musk was clear on the outcome he expects from the spat. 'Trump will prevail. He's the president. He was elected as the president, so Elon made a mistake, I think. But he's tired. He's stressed.' Elon, according to Errol, 'wants to stick to the principles of not giving in to the Democrats [and] their stupid ideas. It's normal, it's just a small thing, [it] will be over tomorrow.' The conflict escalated with Elon Musk publicly criticising Trump and Republican legislation 'One Big Beautiful Bill Bill,' which Musk called 'pork-filled' and a 'disgusting abomination.' Last Thursday, Musk intensified his attacks, claiming without his support, 'Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' At one point, Musk even appeared to support impeachment efforts against Trump and controversially referenced Trump's name in connection with the Epstein files, though that post was later deleted. The feud has strained Musk's business ties with the government. Trump threatened to cut federal contracts with Musk's companies, and Musk hinted at retiring the Dragon spacecraft—the government's primary means of orbital access. While Trump downplays any reconciliation, warning Musk of potential 'consequences' if he financially backs Democrats in 2026, Musk has reportedly shown openness to patching things up. Vice President JD Vance expressed optimism about bringing Musk back into the Republican fold. When asked about reconciliation, Trump was dismissive: 'No, I don't have any plans. I'm not really interested. I'm not thinking about Elon. You know, I just wish him well.' Trump also suggested Musk 'lost his mind' and had gone 'crazy' amid the public conflict.

Trump ‘BLOCKS' Congress Sanctions Against Putin, GOP Senators Too Scared To Protest?
Trump ‘BLOCKS' Congress Sanctions Against Putin, GOP Senators Too Scared To Protest?

Time of India

time29 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Trump ‘BLOCKS' Congress Sanctions Against Putin, GOP Senators Too Scared To Protest?

/ Jun 09, 2025, 01:08AM IST A legislation set to be tabled by a Republican senator seeking more sanctions on Russia has been stalled. According to a Bloomberg report, the bill has been stalled due to U.S. President Donald Trump's opposition. The legislation calls for a 500 per cent tariff on countries that buy Russian energy, uranium, and other raw materials. According to the report, Trump had said he had not even looked at the bill, adding he would consider sanctions "at the right time".

LA unrest marks latest clash of US presidents, states over National Guard
LA unrest marks latest clash of US presidents, states over National Guard

Hindustan Times

time30 minutes ago

  • Hindustan Times

LA unrest marks latest clash of US presidents, states over National Guard

Donald Trump's deployment of California's National Guard marks the first time in decades that a US president openly defied a state governor and sent troops to an emergency zone. The National Guard is a reserve military rooted in the 17th century local militias created in the American colonies before the country's founding. Since then the guard has had multiple responsibilities: domestic disaster relief and security, homeland defense and prevention of civil unrest; and acting as reserve forces for US military deployments overseas. Presidential orders to deploy guardsmen domestically are not uncommon. But clashes between a president and governor over deployments or the lack thereof, such as during the US Capitol riot by Trump supporters on January 6, 2021 while he was still in office have been rare. The White House said Trump relied on a seldom used law, known as Title 10, that permits National Guard federalization in times of "a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." California Governor Gavin Newsom called the decision "purposefully inflammatory." But Trump's order proceeded, and the guard troops were on LA streets Sunday. "This is the first time since 1965 that a president has deployed the National Guard without a request by a state governor," Kenneth Roth, a longtime former Human Rights Watch executive director, posted on X. "Then it was Johnson protecting civil rights protesters. Now it's Trump creating a spectacle so he can continue his immigration raids." Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice warned of a "shocking abuse of power" by Trump, whose memorandum authorizes federalization of National Guard troops "at locations where protests against functions are occurring or are likely to occur." "Trump has authorized the deployment of troops anywhere in the country where protests against ICE activity might occur," Goitein posted on X. "That is a huge red flag." A landmark civil rights moment led to a National Guard clash between a president and a segregationist governor. With demonstrators led by Martin Luther King Jr on a five-day march from Selma to Alabama's capital Montgomery, governor George Wallace pledged National Guard security but then reneged. The U-turn incensed Johnson who, in defiance of Wallace, called up the guard. The march was protected by thousands of Army soldiers and federalized guard members. When the Little Rock school system was ordered desegregated, Arkansas' pro-segregationist governor Orval Faubus deployed the National Guard to surround a high school and prevent nine Black students from entering. President Dwight Eisenhower bristled at the standoff and told Faubus the guard must maintain order so the Black students could attend. Instead, Faubus pulled the guardsmen, leaving security to local forces. Eisenhower issued an executive order federalizing the Arkansas National Guard, and ordered 1,000 US Army troops to join them. Perhaps no anti-Vietnam war protest was more pivotal than at Ohio's Kent State University, where students slammed Richard Nixon's war expansion. As unrest swelled, the National Guard opened fire, killing four students and wounding nine others. The shootings sparked outrage, but also led to reforms regarding how the guard handles civil unrest and use of force. The massive hurricane left much of New Orleans underwater, leading to the largest-ever peacetime deployment of the National Guard. But critics accused then-president George W Bush of favoring a militaristic response over humanitarian relief. Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Blanco, warned that many among the thousands of National Guard and federal troops were battle-tested Iraq war veterans. "These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will," she reportedly said. June 1, 2020 saw a brutal crackdown on demonstrators following the police murder of African-American George Floyd. With people aggressively protesting near the White House, the National Guard joined police to maintain order. Flash grenades and tear gas were deployed. Unlike in the nation's 50 states, the DC National Guard is under direct command of the US president, who at the time was Trump. mlm/st

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store