Trump has threatened European countries with higher tariffs if he doesn’t get Greenland. Will it work?

The incident involving former US President Donald Trump's threat of higher tariffs against European countries if the US acquisition of Greenland did not proceed, though seemingly an isolated event, serves as a potent case study for understanding the intricate dynamics of international relations, trade as a diplomatic tool, and the evolving landscape of global geopolitics. This situation, which unfolded in 2019, underscored critical themes such as state sovereignty, the limits of economic coercion, and the strategic importance of the Arctic region.

**Background Context and What Happened:**

Greenland, the world's largest island, is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. It possesses vast mineral resources, including rare earth elements, and holds immense strategic importance due to its geographical location in the Arctic, between North America and Europe. The United States has a historical interest in Greenland, notably attempting to purchase it after World War II for $100 million. In August 2019, reports emerged that President Trump had expressed interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark. This interest was rooted in Greenland's strategic location for military bases (like Thule Air Base, a vital part of the US ballistic missile early warning system) and its rich natural resources, which are increasingly critical for technological industries.

When Denmark firmly rejected the proposition, calling it "absurd," President Trump abruptly cancelled a state visit to Denmark and reportedly threatened higher tariffs on European countries, presumably as a punitive measure or a bargaining chip. This move was widely perceived as an unprecedented and aggressive use of economic leverage in a diplomatic context, especially against a long-standing NATO ally.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

1. **United States:** Under the Trump administration, the US demonstrated an "America First" foreign policy, prioritizing perceived national interests, often through unilateral actions and economic pressure. The interest in Greenland reflected a broader strategy to secure strategic assets and resources.

2. **Denmark and Greenland:** Denmark, as the sovereign power, asserted its right to territorial integrity and rejected any notion of selling its autonomous territory. Greenland's government also unequivocally stated it was not for sale, highlighting its aspirations for greater autonomy and economic self-sufficiency, but within the Danish realm.

3. **European Countries:** Although not directly involved in the Greenland discussion, European nations were implicitly threatened by the potential tariffs. This highlighted the strain in transatlantic relations under the Trump administration and the vulnerability of global trade to political disputes.

4. **International Law and Global Alliances:** The incident tested the principles of state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs. It also revealed potential cracks in traditional alliances, forcing a re-evaluation of diplomatic norms.

**Why This Matters for India:**

While India was not directly involved, the incident offers several crucial lessons and implications:

* **Arctic Geopolitics:** India has a growing strategic interest in the Arctic region. It holds observer status in the Arctic Council since 2013, operates the 'Himadri' research station in Svalbard, and launched its comprehensive 'India's Arctic Policy' in 2022. The policy emphasizes scientific research, climate change, economic and human development, transportation, and international cooperation. Any attempt by a major power to assert dominance or acquire territory in the Arctic directly impacts the region's stability and India's long-term interests in sustainable resource exploitation, scientific research, and navigation routes.

* **International Trade and Multilateralism:** Trump's threat of tariffs underscored the fragility of the rules-based international trading system, primarily governed by the World Trade Organization (WTO). India, a significant global trading power, relies heavily on predictable and stable international trade rules. The arbitrary use of tariffs as a political weapon can destabilize global supply chains, disrupt market access, and negatively impact India's economic growth and export ambitions. It highlights the need for stronger multilateral institutions and adherence to international trade laws.

* **Sovereignty and Non-Interference:** India has historically been a strong proponent of state sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations, principles enshrined in its foreign policy doctrine. The proposal to buy a territory without the consent of its people and sovereign state, followed by threats, goes against these fundamental tenets, which India consistently upholds in its own regional and global engagements.

* **Shifting Global Alliances:** The incident showcased potential shifts in global alliances and the transactional nature of diplomacy. India navigates a complex geopolitical landscape, balancing relationships with various global powers. Strains between traditional allies, like the US and Europe, have implications for India's strategic calculations and its ability to forge partnerships on critical global issues.

**Constitutional and Policy References for India:**

India's approach to international relations is guided by its Constitution and established policies:

* **Article 51 of the Indian Constitution** directs the State to "endeavour to promote international peace and security; maintain just and honourable relations between nations; foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another; and encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration." This article forms the bedrock of India's commitment to a rules-based international order and peaceful resolution of disputes.

* **Article 253** empowers the Parliament to make any law for implementing any treaty, agreement, or convention with any other country or any decision made at any international conference, association, or other body. This provision facilitates India's participation in international legal frameworks.

* **India's Arctic Policy (2022):** This comprehensive policy document explicitly outlines India's strategic interests in the Arctic, emphasizing cooperation, scientific research, and sustainable development, aligning with international norms and laws.

**Future Implications:**

The Greenland incident, while resolved, leaves behind significant implications. It highlighted the increasing strategic competition in the Arctic, driven by climate change opening new sea routes and access to resources. This region could become a new flashpoint for geopolitical rivalry. Furthermore, the use of economic coercion as a diplomatic tool, even against allies, signals a potential erosion of international norms and could lead to a more fragmented and less predictable global order. For India, this necessitates a robust and adaptable foreign policy, emphasizing strategic autonomy, strengthening multilateral institutions, and diversifying its partnerships to safeguard its interests in a volatile global environment. The 'fragility of international law' highlighted in the source article remains a pertinent concern, urging nations like India to champion its sanctity.