The European Commission, as the executive branch of the European Union, plays a pivotal role in shaping and implementing EU policies.
Its actions, or lack thereof, in response to international events can significantly influence perceptions of its effectiveness and relevance.
A recent case in point is the Commission’s handling of U.S. President Donald Trump’s statements regarding Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory. Trump’s expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, even suggesting the possibility of using military force, has raised questions about the European Commission’s responsiveness and the broader dynamics of EU foreign policy.
Trump’s Greenland Ambitions
In early January 2025, President-elect Donald Trump reiterated his desire for the United States to acquire Greenland, citing national security concerns. When asked about the possibility of using military force or economic pressure to achieve this goal, Trump responded, “I’m not going to commit to that.” He further emphasised, “We need Greenland for national security purposes,” highlighting the island’s strategic position in the Arctic.
European Leaders’ Reactions
The response from European leaders was swift and unequivocal. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz emphasised the inviolability of international borders, stating, “Borders must not be moved by force. This principle applies to every country, whether in the East or the West.”
He noted that Trump’s statements had sparked “notable incomprehension” among EU leaders and called for unity, asserting, “We must stand together.”
France’s Foreign Minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, also weighed in, declaring that Greenland was “European territory” and that there was “no question of the EU letting other nations in the world, whoever they may be… attack its sovereign borders.”
French government spokesperson Sophie Primas described Trump’s statements as a “form of imperialism” and urged European partners to “get away from a form of naivety, to protect ourselves, to rearm.”
Denmark and Greenland’s Position
Denmark, under Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, adopted a more measured approach. Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen called for calm, stating, “Let us keep a cool head.” He expressed openness to dialogue with the U.S. on Arctic cooperation but firmly ruled out the possibility of Greenland becoming part of the U.S. Greenland’s Prime Minister, Múte Bourup Egede, who supports full independence from Denmark, has previously opposed Trump’s suggestions of purchasing the island.
The European Commission’s Stance
In contrast to the clear positions taken by individual European leaders, the European Commission’s response was notably restrained. When questioned about Trump’s comments, Commission spokesperson Anitta Hipper emphasised the importance of respecting state sovereignty but refrained from addressing specific cases. She stated, “It is clear that the sovereignty of states has to be respected,” and expressed anticipation for a “stronger transatlantic agenda” with the incoming U.S. administration.
Chief spokesperson Paola Pinho downplayed the immediacy of the threat, labeling it as “highly speculative.”
She remarked, “There are many threats that do not materialise, and at this stage, we do not believe it is necessary to go beyond this.” When pressed about the applicability of the EU’s mutual defence clause (Article 42.7 of the Treaty) to Greenland, Pinho acknowledged its relevance but cautioned against delving into “very theoretical” discussions.
“You say that sovereignty is paramount, but you’re not going to comment on a pretty naked threat from the incoming president of the United States. I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around that, I mean, what are you waiting for?” asked Euractiv journalist Nicholas Wallace, to no clear response.
“Are you waiting for American marines to land in Greenland or what?” he added.
Political Inertia or Strategic Restraint?
The European Commission’s muted response to Trump’s statements has led to criticism of political inertia. Critics argue that the Commission missed an opportunity to assert the EU’s stance on sovereignty and territorial integrity, potentially undermining its credibility.
The reluctance to confront the U.S. president-elect directly may be perceived as a lack of resolve, especially when compared to the firm positions taken by individual member states.
However, this restraint can also be interpreted as a deliberate strategy to avoid escalating tensions. By not engaging in public confrontations, the Commission may aim to preserve diplomatic channels and focus on broader transatlantic cooperation.
Anitta Hipper’s emphasis on working towards a “stronger transatlantic agenda” suggests a preference for dialogue over dispute. This approach aligns with the Commission’s role in balancing the diverse interests of member states and maintaining cohesion within the EU.
The Role of the European Commission
The European Commission’s cautious handling of the Greenland issue underscores the complexities inherent in EU foreign policy. As the executive arm of the EU, the Commission is tasked with representing the interests of the entire union, which often requires navigating divergent perspectives among member states. In situations involving sensitive geopolitical matters, the Commission may opt for a measured approach to maintain unity and prevent internal divisions.
Moreover, the Commission’s restraint reflects an understanding of the broader geopolitical landscape. Direct confrontation with the U.S. could have far-reaching implications, potentially affecting cooperation on critical issues such as security, trade, and climate change. By avoiding escalation, the Commission preserves the possibility of constructive engagement with the incoming U.S. administration.
The European Commission’s response to President Trump’s statements on Greenland highlights the delicate balance it must maintain between asserting EU principles and managing international relations.
While its cautious approach may well be viewed by some as political inertia, it can also be seen as a strategic decision to prevent unnecessary escalation and protect the EU’s broader interests, even if this means throwing Greenland to the wolves.
