Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Political Geography Greenland

1. Greenland’s minerals to consolidate China’s rare earth dominance? No green future without China

Author:
Per Kalvig and Hans Lucht
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
Rare earth elements (REEs) are vital for communications, the green energy transition and defense, but are produced almost exclusively in China. As the projected REE mines in southern Greenland inch closer to realization, Denmark and its EU partners remain sidelined from future supply chains for raw materials. Key findings: Rare earth elements (REEs) are vital to daily life, communications, green energy and defense. Yet, REEs and products containing REEs are almost exclusively controlled and produced by China. Significant long-term strategic state or supra-state support is required to challenge Chinese dominance of the REE sector and reduce the vulnerability of European and American energy supplies. In the absence of REE industries in Europe or America, the two REE projects in South Greenland, with their potential to become significant suppliers of REE, will most likely supply Chinese-controlled raw materials industries.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Climate Change, Environment, Oil, Power Politics, Gas, Minerals, and Rare earth elements (REEs)
Political Geography:
China, Denmark, Greenland, Arctic, and United States of America

2. Greenland obviously has its own defense policy

Author:
Sara Olsvig and Urik Pram Gad
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
Historically, Danish decisions have not always put Greenlandic interests first. Although defense policy is formally under Danish jurisdiction, decisions only have the legitimacy necessary if Greenland participates in the decision-making processes. Because in Greenland, military activities and installations interfere intimately with civic society. Increased rivalry between the great powers in the Arctic produces challenging issues for the constitutional community consisting of Greenland, the Faroe Islands and Denmark. Denmark and Greenland must make the role they each want to play in the international community clear and rethink the responsibilities and coordination procedures of the community. Otherwise, Greenland and Denmark risk contributing to increased tension in the Arctic – and Greenland risks missing out on potential gains from the growing attention from the great powers.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
Europe, Denmark, and Greenland

3. Outdated lines of communication undermine legitimacy: When Denmark conducts foreign policy on behalf of Greenland … and vice versa

Author:
Sara Olsvig and Ulrik Pram Gad
Publication Date:
12-2020
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
Clearly delimited spheres of authority between Greenland and Denmark within the Realm are unfeasible. Issues where Greenlandic jurisdiction and security policy overlap will increasingly arise. The Government of Denmark must follow through initiatives taken to improve involvement of the Government of Greenland (Naalakkersuisut) – and they must be extended to encompass the Parliament of Greenland (Inatsisartut). Emerging great power dynamics in the Arctic reveal how foreign and security policy is now managed decisively differently within the Danish Realm than it was at the beginning of home rule in 1979. The Government of Greenland has jurisdiction over some elements of foreign policy as well as influence on the security policy conducted in the Arctic by the Realm. However, information-sharing and decision-making procedures have not kept pace with developments and do not ensure parliamentary legitimacy for all aspects of foreign policy. Impossible to draw a line In accordance with the Self-Government Act, the Government of Greenland may engage with international partners across rather wide domains – but changing superpower approaches to the Arctic result in an increasing number of issues having security aspects. A precise demarcation of what constitutes security policy is politically impossible: if the line is drawn wide, the autonomy of Greenland will be rolled back while a tightly drawn line is unsustainable within the official constitutional interpretation, which insists that Copenhagen has a monopoly on conducting security policy. The only way forward is to strengthen the procedures for how cases are to be handled and to negotiate principles for which priorities should inform them. It will not be easy, but there are some basic steps easy to implement.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Autonomy
Political Geography:
Denmark and Greenland

4. Greenland, Denmark and the Debate on Missile Defense: A Window of Opportunity for Increased Autonomy

Author:
Kristian Søby Kristensen
Publication Date:
09-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
This paper investigates the debate leading up to the joint Danish-Greenlandic decision to allow the US to upgrade its radar at Thule Air Base, ensuring its integration in the American missile defense. By analyzing how this debate is structured in the Danish Realm, the paper argues that the contentious history of the Air Base strengthens the moral position of the Greenlanders and provides them with valuable argumentative assets in the debate. This debate, the paper concludes, presents the Greenlanders with a window of opportunity facilitating negotiations with the Danish Government, the effect of which is further Greenlandic independence and increasing Greenlandic influence on security policy.
Topic:
Security and Government
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, Denmark, and Greenland