After Trump’s takeover threats, the Danish territory’s Parliament passed a measure this week to protect “Greenland’s political integrity” ahead of elections in March.
Figure of mythical Kaassassuk, the orphan who acquired great strength, by Greenlandic artist Simon Kristoffersen, outside the the Inatsisartut, Greenland’s home rule parliament, in Nuuk. (David Stanley Flickr, CC BY 2.0)
By Jessica Corbett
Common Dreams
Faced with repeated threats from U.S. President Donald Trump, who wants to take over resource-rich Greenland, the Danish territory’s parliament on Tuesday enacted a ban on foreign political donations, ahead of its March 11 elections.
The new measure — which also bars political parties in the self-governing territory from accepting domestic donations above 200,000 Danish kroner (about $27,700) or 20,000 kroner (about $2,770) from a single contributor — is intended to protect “Greenland’s political integrity,” The Associated Press reported, citing a parliamentary document translated from Danish.
The document states that the legislation “must be seen in light of the geopolitical interests in Greenland and the current situation where representatives of an allied great power have expressed interest in taking over and controlling Greenland.”
According to the AP:
“A senior legal officer at Greenland’s parliament, Kent Fridberg, told The Associated Press he did not know whether any foreign donors had contributed to Greenland’s political parties and the idea for the bill was ‘basically a preventative measure.’
Fridberg noted that some Russian politicians had voiced a similar interest — and that political parties in Greenland are generally funded by public means.”
Even before returning to the White House last month, Trump revived his first-term interest in making Greenland part of the United States. In early January, he even refused to rule out using military force to seize both the autonomous island nation and the Panama Canal.
Trump and Michael Waltz, now his national security adviser, in May 2020. (Rep. Michael Waltz, Wikipedia Commons, Public domain)
Danish and Greenlandic leaders have forcefully pushed back against Trump’s remarks, and polling published last week by a pair of newspapers — Denmark’s Berlingske and Greenland’s Sermitsiaq—shows that 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose joining the U.S.
Public opinion polling conducted in Greenland in 2018 has also received fresh attention recently, including from Trump himself. Gustav Agneman, an associate professor of economics at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, was part of the team that conducted those older surveys, which he discussed in a Tuesday piece for The Conversation.
“Two-thirds of the participants thought that ‘Greenland should become an independent country at some point in the future,'” he noted. “Opinions were more divergent regarding the timing of independence. When asked how they would vote in an independence referendum if it were held today, respondents who stated a preference were evenly split between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ to independence.”
Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede meeting in June 2022 with USAID Administrator Samantha Power to discuss the agency’s development support. (USAID, Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0)
As Agneman detailed:
“Each year, Denmark sends a block grant that covers approximately half of Greenland’s budget. This supports a welfare system that is more extensive than what is available to most Americans. In addition, Denmark administers many costly public services, including national defense.
This backdrop presents a dilemma for many Greenlanders who aspire to independence, as they weigh welfare concerns against political sovereignty. This was also evident from my study, which revealed that economic considerations influence independence preferences.
For many Greenlanders, the island nation’s rich natural resources present a potential bridge between economic self-sufficiency and full sovereignty. Foreign investments and the associated tax revenues from resource extraction are seen as key to reducing economic dependence on Denmark. Presumably, these natural resources, which include rare earths and other strategic minerals, also help explain Trump’s interest in Greenland. “
During a January appearance on Fox News, Trump’s national security adviser, Mike Waltz, made clear why the Republican has renewed interest in the takeover of the nearby territory, saying: “It’s oil and gas. It’s our national security. It’s critical minerals.”
One of the most outspoken critics of Trump’s plan is leftist Greenlandic Prime Minister Múte Egede, who supports independence and has said: “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.”
Announcing the elections for Greenland’s parliament, the Inatsisartut, Egede said on Facebook Tuesday that “we are facing an unprecedented and challenging time,” and stressed the need “for cooperation and unity” among the island’s roughly 60,000 residents.
Jessica Corbett is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.
This article is from Common Dreams.
Views expressed in this article and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
This is proof Greenland’s population is smarter that the US scotus and the US congress.
The Jewish lobby has gotten around the funding limits in the USA. So, I’d suggest all donations/ funding is stopped, made illegal. Let the state fund all registered political parties on an equal basis, based on a fixed amount per number of candidates and a fixed amount of media time.
Politicians are supposed to be representing the people so time to start treating them like civil servants.
I note the prime minister has a glass of water rather than a plastic bottle. I’m always appalled at the number of plastic bottles in photos of international meetings.
After all the proposed sanctions, threats, and protest the EU hurled at Georgia for the same parliamentary acts, i expect we’ll see the EU impose similar measures against Greenland…right?
Thanks. I was about to write the same comment. :)
But this would be intra-EU, as the bit about “Danish territory” means they’d be throwing those sanctions, threats and protests at a loyal, original-core, Russia-hating EU member. Throwing those sanctions at the nation that gave up its F-16’s to Ukraine is different from sanctioning Georgia or hating Hungary. Which of course illustrates the way the modern Free World is sub-divided into different groups and clubs and ranks and hierarchies and thus ain’t really anywhere near “free and equal”.
Good for them.
” The Great Ice Wall ” — in a way
It will give em chills
Dont let your resolute thaw .
” Green Land New Deal”
great find: the picture of Greenland’s PM listening to Powers speaks volumes (it seems he’s trying to keep the conversation as polite as possible).
May the ban serve as precedent.
We need to do the same.
In fact, it would be best if only allowed registered voters to contribute to their own representatives and candidates.
I’ve long said the same. I live in flyover country, and its regular to see our ‘representatives’ having fund-raisers on the coasts. Should not the choice of who represents us be decided from within the district? Every donation should have to come from a registered voter who can vote in that election. In a computer age, easy to do. No more CA, TX or NY money in our elections. And, this does mean also a DOJ task force to look for south african doges and other oligarchs who might recruit strawpeople donors. I’d pay a few lawyer’s salaries to have our elections be our elections for a nice change.
It is fascinating that the rich can donate to any congressperson, but if you go to the congressional website, they try to enforce that you can only contact your representative with your views. A committee chair who’s considering an important bill does not want to hear from you, but will take donations from rich folk anywhere.