Draft Act on the annexation of Greenland in the US Congress

The congressman's initiative, known as the Greenland Annex and Statehood Act, is not limited to 1 clearly defined scenario, specified as the island's redemption. The task is simply a broad political and legal authorisation for the president of the United States: it authorises him to take any "necessary steps" to annex Greenland or "another acquisition" by the United States. In practice, this means beginning the way to both attempts to negociate with Denmark (e.g. in the form of an interstate agreement, a financial agreement or another legal mechanism) and to another instruments of the executive authority, without indicating 1 preferred model.

This is not the first specified initiative

The draft does not contain precise provisions on the usage of armed forces, but does not explicitly exclude it – the wording utilized in the paper is so large that in public debate they rise concerns about the anticipation of a very broad explanation of them. task author argues that Greenland is of key strategical importance: lies at the interface between North America and Europe, allows you to control access to North Atlantic communication routes and is located in the immediate vicinity of the Arctic, a region increasingly penetrated by global powers.

In his opinion, the formal binding of the island to the US would prevent the expansion of the influence of Russia and China. “He who controls Greenland controls key Arctic shipping routes and safety architecture protecting the United States. America must not leave this future in the hands of regimes that despise our values and search to undermine our security," convinces Randy Fine.

However, this initiative is not the first time that ideas on Greenland's "request" appear in American politics. Already in the past, during Donald Trump's erstwhile presidency, Washington signaled interest in the island. This time, however, the proposal takes the form of a circumstantial legislative act, which has given the substance a greater political burden.

Redefining Alliance Principles

The proposal was met with an immediate and unequivocal consequence from Denmark and the Autonomous Authority of Greenland. Both Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland, stressed that the island is not the subject of any trade or political negotiations and its position derives from global law and interior arrangements within the Kingdom of Denmark.

The Greenland authorities recalled that the island has far-reaching autonomy and that decisions on its future must be taken with the engagement of the local community. In Denmark, there have besides been voices informing that the rhetoric of annexation itself undermines assurance between allies and can lead to tensions within the Euro-Atlantic structures.

Greenland, although formally not a separate associate State (it is part of Denmark), has played an crucial function in the North Atlantic defence strategy for decades. U.S. military installations are operating on its territory, crucial for Arctic airspace early informing and monitoring systems. any European politicians point out that unilateral legislative initiatives in the US – even if they are mainly symbolically – can be seen as an effort to redefine alliance principles without consulting partners.

‘This is simply a European territory’

Against the background of the American initiative in Europe, consultations have begun on expanding military presence in Greenland. The talks are actively attended by the UK and Germany, which examine the anticipation of expanding their activity in the Arctic region in cooperation with Denmark. The scenarios considered include, among others, more frequent military exercises, the presence of rotating quotas, the improvement of logistics infrastructure and the strengthening of reconnaissance and patrol capabilities.

It is officially stressed that these actions would be defensive and allied, with the aim of expanding stableness in the region. “We will strengthen safety in the North Atlantic only erstwhile we act together, in solidarity and unity,” says Johann Wadephul, German abroad minister, the media.

At the same time, European diplomats do not hide that the initiative besides has a political dimension. expanding military presence is to be a signal sent to Washington that Europe wants to be a real associate in the Arctic safety debate, not just a passive observer of decisions taken across the Atlantic. It is besides an expression of European determination to defend the position of the island. Greenland is neither for sale nor for acquisition. It is simply a European territory – Jean-Noël Barrot, French abroad Minister, stressed (in his speech on platform X).

(No)real legislative scenario

For now, both the draft US bill and the European military plans stay in the process of declaration and consultation. The destiny of the Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act is alternatively easy to predict. The task was formally registered and directed for further work in the home of Representatives abroad Affairs Committee, where it can be analysed, heard and amended.

Only after receiving the approval of the committee could he be put to the vote of the full House, and then, in the event of acceptance, to the Senate, where he would gotta follow the same path. A U.S. President's signature would be essential at the end of the trial. In practice, however, the chances of a task being pushed distant are assessed as very small: it is not supported by the Republican Party.

It is worth quoting in this context the public message of organization friend Randy Fine, Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska: – This is outrageous. Greenland belongs to an ally from NATO. Denmark is 1 of our best friends... The way we treat them is humiliating and does not bring any benefits – Bacon comments. We're not taking over Greenland. I know that most people in Greenland want to stay independent," he adds.

Furthermore, Democrats are announcing initiatives to block the financing of any action to take over Greenland. In addition, the task runs counter to existing global law, faces clear opposition from Denmark and the Greenlandic authorities and conflicts with the US's allied interests within NATO, which makes it seen as a political motion and an component of interior debate in the US alternatively than a real legislative scenario.