Open the newsletter to watch the White House for free
Your guide to what the American elections mean 2024 for Washington and the world
Donald Trump insisted that he was serious about his determination to seize Greenland in a fiery phone call with the Prime Minister in Denmark, according to senior European officials.
The US President spoke to Mette Frederiksen, the Danish Prime Minister, for 45 minutes last week. The White House did not comment on the invitation, but Friedriksen said it confirmed that the vast North Pole island – an independent part of the Kingdom of Denmark – was not for sale, with a reference to the “great interest” of America.
Five of the current and former European officials who have seen the call said that the conversation was very bad.
They added that Trump was aggressive and confronted in the wake of the Danish Prime Minister's comments that the island was not for sale, despite its offer to further cooperation on military bases and mineral exploitation.
One of the people said: “It was horrific.” Another added: “It was very firm. It was a cold shower. Before, it was difficult to take it seriously. But I think it was dangerous, and perhaps very dangerous.”
It is possible that the details of the call to the European concerns will deepen that Trump's return to power will strive for the Atlantic relations more than ever, as the American president integrates the allies to give up land.
Trump began his second term, which is likely to take over Greenland, Panama, and even Canada.
Many European officials were hoping that his comments on the request to control Greenland for the reasons for “national security” were a trick of negotiations to gain more impact on NATO lands. Russia and China are both also roaming the center in the Arctic.
But the call with Frederiksen has crushed such hopes, depths of the foreign policy crisis between NATO allies.
The intention was very clear. They want it. “The Danes are now in crisis.” Another said: “The Danish are exactly empty of this.”
A former Danish official added: “It was a very difficult conversation. It threatened specific measures against Denmark, such as targeted tariffs,” added a former Danish official.
The Danish Prime Minister's office said that “he does not admit the interpretation of the conversation presented by unknown sources.”
Greenland, only 57,000 people, is an entry point to new shipping routes that gradually open across the Arctic; It also includes abundant but difficult to reach minerals.
“President Trump was clear that the safety and security of Greenland are important to the United States, as China and Russia are making major investments throughout the Arctic,” said the White House National Security Council spokesman.
“The president is not only obligated to protect American interests in the Arctic, but also works with Greenland to ensure mutual prosperity for both countries.”
In early January, Trump threatened duties on Denmark if he opposed it in Greenland. He also refused to exclude the military force to control the island.
“People do not really know whether Denmark has any legal right to do so, but if they do so, they must abandon it because we need national security,” Trump said at a press conference a few days before he took office.
“I am talking about protecting the free world,” he added. “You have China ships everywhere. You have Russian ships everywhere. We don't let this happen.”
MúTE EGEDE, Prime Minister in Greenland, has repeatedly confirmed that the island's residents want independence instead of citizenship – or Danish. But he welcomed the American commercial attention to mining and tourism.
Friedrixen held a meeting with the chief executives of the large Danish companies, including Novo Nordisk and Carlsburg last week to discuss Trump's threats, including potential tariffs against her country.
On the day of Trump's call, TV2 told Denmark: “There is no doubt that there is a great interest in and around Greenland. Based on the conversation I had today, there is no reason to believe that it should be less than what we have heard in the general debate.”
