Election of the Day: Greenland

On Tuesday, Greenlanders will vote to select a new Inatsisartut, the parliament of this autonomous, constituent country in the realm of the Kingdom of Denmark. Danish interests in Greenland date back over 300 years, to Hans Egede’s joint mercantile/clerical expedition in 1721. While the post WWII wave of decolonization did not produce an independent Greenland, it saw significant changes in Greenland’s status. In 1953, it ceased to be a formal colony, becoming an Amt (effectively, a county) nominally equal in jurisdictional status to the Amts of Denmark proper. This gesture toward decolonial equality was disastrous for Greenlanders in many ways, leading to aggressive assimilation policies that will sound familiar to scholars of settler colonialism the world over: forced linguistic shifts to Danish, children separated from shipped off to boarding schools in mainland Denmark, and so forth. This in turn produced a backlash and a push for independence and a distinctly Greenlandic identification. This movement was partially successful in 1979, when a referendum on greater autonomy and the establishment of a parliament was passed by Greenlanders 73-27. The first Inatsisartut was elected a few months later. Greenland’s unicameral parliament was comprised of 21 seats (now 31) elected via proportional representation in a single national constituency. This push for greater autonomy was followed by exiting the EU (1982) and the EEC (1985), in part due to a dispute about fishing rights. (Greenlanders maintain many of the individual benefits of EU membership, such as Schengen free movement, via their Danish citizenship.)

It will come as little surprise to readers who make a habit of following the political affairs of a rather large and somewhat unpredictable country to the Southwest of Greenland that President Donald Trump is a figure who, while not on the ballot, nevertheless looms large in this election. Pro-greater autonomy and pro-independence parties have generally done well in Greenlandic elections, but a strong push for full independence has rarely followed. The belligerent imperial talk about “taking” Greenland emerging from the Trump administration has not gone unnoticed:

US President Donald Trump’s repeated interest in acquiring Greenland has put it firmly in the spotlight and fueled the longstanding debate on the island’s future ties with Copenhagen.

“There’s never been a spotlight like this on Greenland before,” says Nauja Bianco, a Danish-Greenlandic policy expert on the Arctic.

Greenland has been controlled by Denmark – nearly 3,000km (1,860 miles) away – for about 300 years. It governs its own domestic affairs, but decisions on foreign and defence policy are made in Copenhagen.

Now, five out of six parties on the ballot favour Greenland’s independence from Denmark, differing only on how quickly that should come about.

The debate over independence has been “put on steroids by Trump”, says Masaana Egede, editor of Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq.

In Nuuk, his words struck a nerve with politicians who were quick to condemn them. “We deserve to be treated with respect and I don’t think the American president has done that lately since he took office,” Prime Minister Mute Egede said.

Still, the US interest has stoked calls for Greenland to break away from Denmark, with much of the debate focused on when – not if – the process of independence should begin.

Greenland’s independence goal is not new, Nauja Bianco points out, and has been decades in the making.

A string of revelations about past mistreatment of Inuit people by the Danes have hurt Greenlandic public opinion about Denmark. Earlier this year, PM Egede said the territory should free itself from “the shackles of colonialism”.

Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA), the party of Prime Minister Mute Egede, favours gradual steps towards autonomy. “Citizens must feel secure,” he told local media.

Arctic expert Martin Breum says Egede’s handling of the challenge from Trump and strong words against Denmark over past colonial wrongdoings “will give him a lot of votes”.

Smaller rivals could also gain ground and potentially shake up alliances.

Opposition party Naleraq wants to immediately kick-off divorce proceedings from Copenhagen and have closer defence dealings with Washington.

Pointing to Greenland’s EU departure and Brexit, party leader Pele Broberg has said that Greenland could be “out of the Danish kingdom in three years”.

Naleraq is fielding the largest number of candidates and has gained momentum by riding the wave of discontent with Denmark.

“Naleraq will also be a larger factor too in parliament,” predicts Mr Breum, who says party candidates have performed well on TV and on social media.

However, the centre-right Demokraatit party believes it is too soon to push for independence.

“The economy will have to be much stronger than it is today,” party candidate Justus Hansen told Reuters.

I’m sure some of you have seen discussion of a January poll that indicated 85% of Greenlanders oppose incorporation into the United States. This result seems highly plausible, but Greenland is very difficult to poll so I wouldn’t put too much stock in it. One way to indirectly and imperfectly track this will be to watch the vote share of Naluraq, whose particular version of anti-Copenhagen sentiment is a bit more Washington-curious than the two leading parties. Naluraq’s preferred future is a free association agreement with Washington, akin to recently renegotiated agreement between the Federated States of Micronesia and Washington discussed in this space last week. (A “centrist populist” party, Naluraq has 4 seats and received 12% of the vote in 2021, lagging well behind the two leading parties, Inuit Ataqatigiit and Siumet, both left-leaning social democratic parties, with 12 and 10 seats respectively. The Democrats, Greenland’s most independent-skeptical party, was 4th with 9% and 3 seats.)

Independence is the kind of thing that may turn out to be popular in theory but less so in any realistic kind of practice. Greenland’s welfare state us extensive, and subsidized by the Danes to a considerable degree. Despite all this, it shouldn’t be terribly surprising that the ugly spectacle of a buffoon like Trump talking about “taking” your country tends to inspire dreams of sovereignty. From a Danish/EU perspective it also makes the next four years a particularly risky moment to explore this option, so I’m skeptical the results of the election will result in a significant push on a short timeline.

Of course, while the Trumpian threat is why the world is paying attention to this election to a degree never before seen in Greenland, it doesn’t mean voters are placing geopolitics first.

For many of Greenland’s 56,000 residents — a tiny population on the world’s biggest island — geopolitics is not a priority. At the recent town hall debate and in interviews with voters, Greenlanders expressed much more prosaic worries, often about living costs, unemployment, schools and health care.

“The election is shaped by what I would call a ‘cross-pressure’ — two competing narratives pulling in different directions,” said Rasmus Leander Nielsen, a political scientist at Ilisimatusarfik University in the capital, Nuuk. “The geopolitical debates might dominate headlines, but for the average voter, daily life matters more.”

European diplomats and American investors have been streaming into snowbound Nuuk, drawn by the island’s resources and its strategic location. Greenland’s position along Arctic sea lanes, which are opening up as the planet warms, has attracted the attention of the United States, Russia, China and European powers. The island also possesses vast mineral deposits, though many are hard to access.

In contrast to those sweeping ambitions, people on the island say they’re worried about higher housing costs and economic uncertainty.

“This election is a test of where Greenlanders see their future — both in their everyday lives and on the global stage,” Mr. Leander Nielsen said. “The question is whether voters will prioritize immediate economic concerns or the bigger geopolitical picture. It’s a tough call.”

One thing I haven’t been able to figure much out about is the differences between the two leading parties, Inuit Ataqatigiit and Siumet. Both are socialist/social democratic parties, born in 70’s radicalism and independence fervor. Both have consistently been pro-independence in a relatively moderate and gradual way. Siumet has seen their electoral position erode over the years and is out of government because Inuit Ataqatigiit leader elected to form a government with the Naluraq, the populist centrists with an eye toward closer ties to Washington, rather than their fellow social democrats. Reading between the lines it sounds as though Inuit Ataqatigiit may have become a bit more open to markets and their place in Greenland’s economy than Siumet, but I’m genuinely uncertain about that. It’s tricky to know exactly how to read any shift in the support level for Naluraq, as well: on the one hand, they speak with greater certainty and urgency about independence from Copenhagen than the two leading parties. On the other hand, his openness toward greater US ties, whatever its merits in a non-Trump timeline, may function as a liability in the timeline we have the misfortune to find ourselves in.

The results should be known late Tuesday.