Greenland, with a population of fewer than 57,000, might not seem to be the territory on which the future of the relationship between Europe and the US, the viability of Nato as the world\u2019s most successful defence alliance, or even the fractured relations between the UK and Europe would be determined.<\/p>\n
But battlefields are sometimes the product of chance, rather than choice. It now feels as if Donald Trump\u2019s threat to impose 10% tariffs on eight fellow Nato states for sending troops last week to support Greenland\u2019s sovereignty may be one of those clarifying moments in which Europe had no option. Successive European leaders condemned Trump\u2019s blackmail and intimidation on Sunday and they sounded as if they meant it.<\/p>\n
The chair of the Danish parliament\u2019s defence committee, Rasmus Jarlov, can hardly claim to speak for Europe, but he captured a mood in saying: \u201cEvery insult, threat, tariff and lie that we receive strengthens our resolve. The answer from Denmark<\/a> and Greenland is final: We will never hand over Greenland.\u201d<\/p>\n He added: \u201cWe pray that our true allies will stand with us because we are going to need it.\u201d<\/p>\n So far there is every sign that all eight countries targeted by Trump will spring to Denmark\u2019s defence. Even leaders of other European countries close to Trump such as the Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, called his decision a mistake.<\/p>\n Graph of US tariffs on European countries<\/a><\/p>\n In their joint statement the eight made no threat of reprisals such as imposing counter-tariffs on the US, but they warned his move risked a dangerous downward spiral and that a trade war would be a matter of time.<\/p>\n The French president, Emmanuel Macron, is exploring the activation of the EU\u2019s anti-coercion instrument in his discussions with fellow European leaders, the \u00c9lys\u00e9e briefed. France will also raise the question of the validity of the EU-US tariff agreement<\/a> concluded in 2025.<\/p>\n Keir Starmer, his fate increasingly tied with Europe, has not yet said if the UK will retaliate, but the benefits of Brexit are rapidly evaporating. His trade agreement with the US, announced with fanfare last year<\/a>, has not yet been signed. The indefinite postponement risks weakening his position in the Labour party. He has rebuffed those who argue for the UK to join the EU customs union, by saying it would be impossible<\/a> as it would undermine the UK trade deal with the US. With no trade deal, and an extra 10% blanket tariffs on UK imports, that argument looks threadbare.<\/p>\n Moreover in the wider \u2013 and perennial \u2013 Churchillian choice for the UK between the values of the open sea, represented by the US, and those of Europe, the case for the open sea has been dealt yet another blow. When Bronwen Maddox, the director of Chatham House, the voice of the UK foreign policy elite, declared last week that the western alliance was over<\/a>, one can be sure similar views are being expressed privately in the UK Foreign Office.<\/p>\n For those such as the national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, who have made it an article of faith that the UK relationship is based on public quiescence and private influence, these are trying times.<\/p>\n Yet for months European leaders, especially Starmer\u2019s entourage, hoped Trump\u2019s threat to invade Greenland was either an outlandish fantasy, to be deposited in his locker of empty threats, or else could be assuaged by a compromise such as giving the US military greater access, and more bases, as permissible under existing defence agreements such as the 1951 Greenland defence agreement. Denmark\u2019s political leadership went to the White House<\/a> last week with a version of this offer, but got nowhere. Trump, it seems, is not interested in sovereign US bases on Greenland. He wants ownership.<\/p>\n Since nothing any longer is preposterous, the risk of a military confrontation between Europe and the US is not minuscule. \u201cIf the United States decides to militarily attack another Nato country, then everything would stop,\u201d argued Mette Frederiksen, Denmark\u2019s prime minister<\/a>, on 5 January. \u201cThat includes Nato and therefore post-second world war security.\u201d<\/p>\n The former UK permanent secretary Simon McDonald, speaking on the BBC\u2019s Broadcasting House radio show, agreed. \u201cThere\u2019s no way back, when one ally turns against another militarily, that\u2019s the end of the alliance. The people who most obviously benefit from that are Presidents Putin and Xi.\u201d<\/p>\n