Greenland at the Crossroads
| Date | 01 December 2011 |
| Published date | 01 December 2011 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070201106600420 |
| Author | Marc Auchet |
| Subject Matter | IV. Subnational Governments |
Greenland at the
crossroads
WhatstrategyfortheArctic?
At the end of March 2010, a domestic political event suddenly made
Greenland a hot topic in Danish current affairs: Lene Espersen, the leader
of the Conservative People’s party and the new minister of foreign affairs,
decided not to attend the meeting of the foreign ministers of five circumpolar
countries (Canada, Denmark/Greenland, United States, Norway, and
Russia) to be held on March 29 in Chelsea, Québec. The reason given by
the minister—a long-planned family holiday on Majorca—provoked a flood
of vehement criticism that seriously undermined her credibility. Although
she had just been appointed the previous month and was a neophyte in
foreign affairs, Espersen did not judge it necessary to meet the likes of
Hillary Clinton. Another meeting was to be held a bit later in any event, she
explained, and only an overview was on the agenda for this one. In the end,
Lars Barfoed, the Danish minister of justice, stood in for her at the meeting
(and very competently, it should be noted).
Marc Auchet is an emeritus professor of Scandinavian Studies at La Sorbonne (Paris IV). An
earlier and shorter version of this article was presented at the conference “Développement
durable et souveraineté dans l’Arctique: Quels défis?” held at l’Université Laval in May
2010. The article was translated from French by Susan M. Murphy.
| International Journal | Autumn 2011 | 957 |
| Marc Auchet |
The most insightful commentators on this affair (in Greenland and
elsewhere) pointed out that Danish public opinion was far more interested
in the minister’s cavalier approach than the substantive political issues.
Indeed, this headline-grabbing episode speaks volumes about the average
Dane’s lack of interest in the far-flung autonomous territory. This was not,
however, the case for the preceding minister of foreign affairs, Per Stig
Møller, also a Conservative People’s party member, who had been a pillar
of the successive centre-right governments since the 2001 changeover of
power. Møller was the moving force behind the 2008 Ilulissat declaration,
to which I will return later in this article. Møller’s announcement, made
prior to the February 2010 ministerial shuffle, that he planned to attend the
Chelsea meeting did not stop Espersen from sloughing off that professional
obligation. This less-than-glorious episode was an unfortunate one for the
government of Lars Løkke Rasmussen, which, already damaged by the
failure of the 2009 UN climate-change conference in Copenhagen, was
in any event markedly less popular than that of his predecessor, Anders
Fogh Rasmussen, who was prime minister from 2001 until his April 2009
designation as secretary-general of NATO.
The crisis of confidence sparked by Espersen in the spring of 2010 has
continued to deepen. Alarming polls published at the end of the year showed
that support for her Conservative party had been effectively cut in half and
was sitting around the four- or five-percent level. Because her own popularity
had dropped to its lowest level, Espersen stepped down as president of the
party in January 2011. She did however retain the portfolio of minister of
foreign affairs and in this capacity she received her Arctic Council colleagues
and the representatives of the indigenous populations at Nuuk on 12 May
2011. During this official meeting Sweden succeeded Denmark as the
chair of this international body for a two-year term. In an apparent effort to
counter the strong criticism endured by Espersen the previous year, Clinton
heaped praise on her Danish colleague during the summit’s closing press
conference.1 Although this eloquent defence was duly noted by the press,
the overall critical attitude towards the Danish foreign minister remained
unchanged.
1 In response to the question as to what advice she would give her colleague, Clinton
said she was a “big fan” of Lene Espersen who, according to Clinton, was both an
exceptional representative of her country and a good example of a woman able to
balance political and family responsibilities. See Hilary Clinton, “Remarks with Danish
foreign minister Lene Espersen after their meeting,” www.state.gov.
| 958 | Autumn 2011 | International Journal |
| Greenland at the crossroads |
It is interesting to compare the relative importance accorded to polar
questions by the two Scandinavian countries bordering on the Arctic Ocean,
Norway and Denmark.2 In his 2008 book Å Gjøre en Forskjell (Making a
Difference), Norway’s current foreign minister, Jonas Gahr Støre, set out the
key points of his intended foreign policy. It is striking to note that one of
the first two chapters of this book is entirely devoted to the Arctic and the
final chapter stresses the critical importance of Norway’s most northerly
regions. Støre clearly believes that his country should give this issue the
highest priority. Although Støre’s then-counterpart in Denmark, Per Stig
Møller, did not write a similar book, he did analyze Denmark’s foreign policy
that same year in the context of a research seminar.3 In stark contrast to his
Norwegian opposite number, however, Møller gave only a very limited place
to the Arctic and Greenland. Nonetheless, the fact that he was supportive of
the important Illulisat meeting shows that Møller is very conscious of the
region’s importance. While it is of course true that oil revenues are much
more important for the Norwegian economy than for that of Denmark, and
it is therefore only natural for the Barents’ Sea potential to catch Støre’s
attention, it should be noted that traditionally neither the Danish public nor
its politicians have ever seen Greenland as a priority.
Indeed, a study of the question of Greenland’s natural resources gives
rise to the overall impression that the Danes do not fully realize that their
country is objectively (for how much longer?) one of the great powers of
the Arctic. Greenland’s geographic distance from the rest of Denmark and
the history of their relations are of course important elements in this story.
However, the interest shown in the Arctic by such great powers as the United
States, Russia, and China, as well as by the European Union, combined with
the new Greenlandic government’s increased activity, is putting pressure
on Denmark to come up with a more forceful strategy in the area. Several
recent initiatives show that certain changes, to which I will return in the
conclusion, are already underway.
2 For a more extensive comparative study, see Niklas Granholm, “Delar av ett nytt
Arktis: Utvicklingar av dansk kanadensisk och isländsk arktispolitik,” [Parts in a
new Arctic: Developments in Danish, Canadian and Icelandic policy for the Arctic],
Totalförsvarets Forskningsinstitut, Avdelingen för Försvarsanalys, 2009.
3 “Udenrigspolitiske udfordringer i det 21 Århundrede: Debatseminar med udenrigsminister
Per Stig Møller og yngre forskere,” [Foreign policy challenges in the 21st century: Discussion
seminar with foreign minister Per Stig Møller and younger researchers], 2008.
| International Journal | Autumn 2011 | 959 |
| Marc Auchet |
GREENLAND FROM 1945 TO 2008: AN OVERVIEW
The Second World War highlighted Greenland’s strategic...
To continue reading
Request your trial