European Policy Responses to the Greenland Case

Introduction

Statements made by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding the potential “purchase” of Greenland were short-lived in political terms, yet long-lasting in their normative and institutional implications. Beyond their rhetorical shock value, these statements exposed a fundamental clash between two paradigms of international relations:

• a transactional, power-centric, and environmentally indifferent approach to geopolitics, and
• the European model, grounded in democracy, the rule of law, self-determination, social responsibility, and sustainability.

This policy paper argues that the Greenland episode should not be dismissed as an aberration, but rather understood as a stress test for European values. It calls for proactive European policy responses that replace ineffective, provocative narratives with coherent, rights-based, and ecologically responsible strategies.

1. Greenland as a Governance and Values Issue

Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, endowed with extensive self-government and a legally recognized right to determine its future political status. Its population is predominantly Inuit—an Indigenous people with a distinct cultural, linguistic, and social identity.

From a European perspective, Greenland cannot be framed as: an unclaimed strategic space, a reservoir of extractable resources, or an object of interstate transaction. Any discourse that treats territory and population as commodities constitutes a direct challenge to the principle of self-determination, a cornerstone of international law and a foundational element of the European political order.

2. Self-Determination and Respect for Indigenous Peoples

The European Union, through the Charter of Fundamental Rights and its external action principles, recognizes that Indigenous peoples have:

• the right to self-governance,
• the right to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their land and resources, and
• the right to preserve their culture and ways of life.

The Greenland case illustrates the risks inherent in geopolitical approaches that marginalize Indigenous voices. Any strategy that treats Inuit communities as secondary stakeholders is institutionally incompatible with European norms. A European approach must be anchored in the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent as a non-negotiable requirement for any political, economic, or strategic engagement affecting Indigenous territories.

3. Social Responsibility as a Component of Power

In the European policy framework, social responsibility is not limited to corporate conduct; it is a core requirement of public authority. The exercise of power without accountability, social safeguards, or legal constraint erodes legitimacy and long-term stability. The notion of “buying” Greenland reflects a model in which: power precedes law, economic interest overrides social responsibility, and politics is reduced to transactional bargaining. The European Union, by contrast, seeks—albeit imperfectly—to advance a model of responsible governance, in which geopolitical interests are embedded within legal, social, and ethical constraints.

4. The European Green Deal and the Arctic Dimension

The European Green Deal represents more than a climate strategy; it is a comprehensive socio-economic and geopolitical framework. It explicitly links climate action, social cohesion, and long-term security.

The Arctic—and Greenland in particular—occupies a critical position in this framework. European climate policy recognizes that:

• the climate crisis cannot justify new extractive frontiers,
• the green transition must not reproduce colonial or exploitative patterns, and
• ecosystem protection is inseparable from the protection of local and Indigenous communities.

If the Green Deal is to retain credibility, it must function as a counterweight to environmentally reckless geopolitics, not as a technocratic add-on.

5. The “Insane Parameter” as an Institutional Warning

The significance of the Greenland episode lies less in its feasibility than in its discursive impact. When proposals that violate core principles of international law are voiced by senior political actors, the boundaries of acceptable political discourse shift. For Europe, this constitutes a warning: the defense of self-determination, social responsibility, and ecological integrity cannot be assumed—it must be actively reinforced through policy and institutional clarity.

6. From Dead-End Assertions to European Policy Alternatives

6.1 Institutional Safeguards for Self-Determination

Dead-end assertion: Geopolitical necessity justifies bypassing local consent.

European policy alternative: Establish EU-level mandatory consultation frameworks for strategic activities affecting autonomous or Indigenous territories & codify Free, Prior and Informed Consent  as a binding condition in all EU-linked agreements involving natural resources.

Expected outcome:
Enhanced legitimacy, conflict prevention, and long-term stability.

6.2 From Extractivism to Sustainable Value Creation

Dead-end assertion:
The green transition requires intensified extraction in resource-rich regions.

European policy alternative:

• Prioritize the circular economy, recycling of critical raw materials, and demand reduction.
• Develop EU strategic reserves under strict social and environmental criteria.
• Prohibit extractive activities in ecologically critical Arctic zones.

Expected outcome:
Reduced geopolitical tension and avoidance of “green colonialism.”

6.3 Social Responsibility as Foreign Policy Infrastructure

Dead-end assertion:
Social considerations are secondary to security and strategic interests.

European policy alternative:

• Integrate binding social impact indicators into EU external and security policies.
• Create accountability mechanisms for public and private actors operating in sensitive regions.
• Condition EU funding on local employment, cultural protection, and social inclusion.

Expected outcome:
A shift from militarized security to social and ecological resilience.

6.4 Multilateral Governance of the Arctic

Dead-end assertion:
Major powers must secure Arctic interests unilaterally.

European policy alternative:

• Strengthen EU engagement in Arctic multilateral forums.
• Initiate discussions toward an international Arctic protection treaty, inspired by the Antarctic model.
• Ensure Indigenous peoples’ representation as equal decision-making partners.

Expected outcome:
De-escalation, trust-building, and long-term environmental protection.

6.5 Strategic Resilience Against Destabilizing Rhetoric

Dead-end assertion:
Provocative statements enhance bargaining power.

European policy alternative:

• Develop EU strategic resilience frameworks to address destabilizing political discourse.
• Invest in evidence-based public diplomacy and institutional communication.
• Establish clear normative red lines against the normalization of the unacceptable.

Expected outcome:
Protection of democratic discourse and institutional credibility.

7. Consolidated Policy Recommendations

1. Institutionalize self-determination and Indigenous consent as binding principles.
2. Reorient the green transition toward circularity rather than new extractive frontiers.
3. Embed social responsibility into geopolitical and security strategies.
4. Advance multilateral, rights-based governance of the Arctic.
5. Strengthen European resilience to authoritarian and destabilizing narratives.

Concluding Note

The “insane parameter” introduced by the Greenland episode cannot be countered with irony or silence. It requires coherent, values-based policy action. The European Union possesses the institutional tools and normative foundations to articulate a credible alternative—provided it chooses to exercise power with restraint, responsibility, and democratic accountability.

Greenland was never for sale. What is at stake is whether Europe will consistently defend a model of governance rooted in dignity, sustainability, and self-determination in an increasingly volatile world.