Danish foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, has said there is still a “fundamental disagreement” over the future of Greenland following talks at the White House.
The US president, Donald Trump, has repeatedly stated that he wants Greenland to become part of the US, warning that only America can protect Greenland from Russia and China. As Vice-President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were meeting the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers, the White House posted an image on X portraying Greenland at crossroads between the sunny US and the doom of Russia and China.
The meeting was held amid announcements that Denmark and Greenland are strengthening military presence in the Arctic with European Nato allies.
Denmark’s leaders have reacted strongly in rejecting the push by Trump to acquire Greenland, saying that the island, as a territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, must not be either sold or taken by force. But Greenlandic politicians were dissatisfied with the early exclusion of their voices in Copenhagen’s action.
Representatives of Greenland were angered following a fractious online meeting on January 6 between Danish and Greenlandic politicians. Pipaluk Lynge, the co-chair of Greenland’s foreign affairs committee, criticised the failure to invite Greenlanders to participate in an important meeting about the unfolding situation.
Lynge stated that the exclusion was “neo-colonialist”. With around 90% of Greenlanders being Indigenous Inuit, the Danish failed to respect the Indigenous rights and follow the principle: nothing about Greenland without Greenlanders.
Leaders of Greenland’s five political parties recently released a statement, underlining their right to self-determination: “We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danish, we want to be Greenlanders. The future of Greenland must be decided by Greenlanders.”
The US threats to acquire Greenland – if necessary by force – and the Danish government’s firm response revealed the issues of who has authority in Greenland’s foreign affairs, and whether Indigenous voices are being listened to.
Some Greenlanders feel that the Danish government should let Greenland lead its foreign policy. Greenland’s foreign minister, Vivian Motzfeldt, suggested they meet with the US alone..
Under the Danish constitution, Denmark controls foreign affairs for the kingdom as a whole, including Greenland. But the 2009 Self-Government Act mandates cooperation with Greenland.
Also Greenland’s government, the Naalakkersuisut, has powers to act on its own in limited foreign policy matters that exclusively concern Greenland. The Greenlandic government and parliament extensively decide about the domestic affairs.
Denmark recognises Greenland’s right to seek independence. If the people of Greenland are in favour of independence, they can initiate a process of negotiations between the Danish government and Naalakkersuisut. The agreement would be put to a referendum in Greenland, and it would need the consent of the Danish parliament.
Relationship between Denmark and Greenland
Over centuries, the relationship between Denmark and Greenland has been chequered by a number of issues. The legacy of the colonial period, underdevelopment, and the way in which historic and ongoing human rights violations have been addressed remain significant points of contention.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Indigenous women faced forced birth control measures by Danish doctors. The Danish prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, made a formal apology on behalf of Denmark last September after the conclusion of a three-year long investigation into the scandal.
Danish social services only stopped using parental competency tests, which failed to account for cultural and language differences, on Greenlandic families last May. The tests had been used to justify the removal of Indigenous children from their families. Greenlandic parents were nearly six times more likely to have their children taken by social services, with the Danish government now looking to review 300 cases of forced removal.
In 2014, Denmark rejected the invitation to participate in the Greenland Reconciliation Commission established by the Greenland’s parliament, Inatsisartut, indicating there was no need for reconciliation. Things have improved since and, in 2022, Denmark and Greenland agreed to collaborate on a research project to examine the colonial past. But this project only began last year.
Road to self-determination
Greenland’s independence appears unlikely in the near future, despite the burdened relationship with Denmark and strong popular support.
A poll conducted in January 2025 indicated that 56% of Greenlanders were in favour of independence. This figure was 68% as recently as 2019. Crucially, in 2025 85% of Greenlanders were against joining the US.
The poll also showed 45% were opposed to independence if it meant a decrease in living standards. The economic future of Greenland is a key issue in the independence debate with approximately a half of the government’s revenue coming from an annual grant from Denmark.
In the 2025 general election, in which independence and Trump’s earlier statements were key issues, five of the six main parties supported Greenland becoming fully autonomous. However, they disagreed on how fast this should happen.
The Democratic party won, arguing for a gradual approach and entered into a coalition with three other parties. The second largest party, Naleraq, campaigned on having a referendum in the next few years but became the sole opposition.
The question of Greenland’s future is about the next generations of its Indigenous people. With the Danish commitment to allow progress towards independence, becoming part of the US represents a more uncertain future with possibly reduced rights and self-determination. Listening to the Indigenous leaders and decision-makers would allow a more nuanced understanding of the current security crisis and its human consequences.
Anna Katila does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
