Key Points
- Donald Trump’s military threats against Greenland are undermining NATO.
- Experts say the defensive alliance will be less able to deter threats without US support.
- The growing divide between the US and Europe creates a ‘dilemma’ for Australian foreign policy, experts say.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is under threat from its largest benefactor as United States President Donald Trump threatens military action against a fellow NATO member.
The president believes the island is vital to US security because of its strategic location, and has not ruled out using force to take it.
Experts have warned that the US threats against Denmark and Greenland go beyond regional politics and undermine the whole of NATO, leaving countries vulnerable to attack.
European leaders have expressed unwavering support for the independence of Denmark and Greenland, a stance that further strains the relationship between the United States and Europe.
The US’s willingness to challenge NATO allies through territorial ambitions jeopardizes the alliance’s fundamental deterrent capabilities, according to analysts.
Jessica Genauer, an associate professor in international relations at Flinders University, said Trump’s threats towards Greenland delegitimise NATO.
“The US is unlikely to engage in military action against other NATO member countries or to unilaterally withdraw from NATO,” she told SBS News.
“When NATO’s adversaries see the alliance as fragmented and susceptible to US dominance, they may start questioning NATO’s determination,” remarked Genauer.
She explained that alliances like NATO are not designed to target non-member countries, but rather to create better defensive capabilities.
If the US were to withdraw from the alliance, NATO would lose two-thirds of its budget, weakening the overall security of its members.
President Trump stated that tariffs would be enforced “until a comprehensive agreement is secured for the complete acquisition of Greenland.”
“NATO also has significant physical and institutional infrastructure, including headquarters, communication systems, and aircraft, which are collectively owned by the alliance,” an expert highlighted.
Stephan Frühling from the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre of the Australian National University, said that Trump’s threats against Greenland are part of his broader anti-European sentiment.
He said that the Trump administration seems to “detest Europe” through its various military and economic threats.
The tariffs would be “payable until such time as a deal is reached for the complete and total purchase of Greenland,” Trump said.
Frühling said that Trump is clearly not invested in maintaining NATO, and that historically strong diplomatic ties between the US and Europe are now past the point of repair.
“I think with these latest threats we have turned a corner for Trump and Europe,” he told SBS News.
“The Western Alliance is gone, even if NATO as an institution will keep limping on.”
Should the US withdraw from NATO, it would not only worsen its political relationship with other members, but it would also threaten military infrastructure as well.
“There’s also obviously a lot of physical and institutional infrastructure in NATO in terms of the headquarters — there’s communication systems, there’s also aircraft and whatnot that are all owned by the alliance,” he said.
Can the treaty be replaced?
Without US support, NATO’s future would be in grave doubt.
Should the treaty cease to function without US backing, Frühling said it would be hard to replicate.
“I don’t think the Europeans, Canada and Iceland could maintain it without them [the US]. And that raises the question of whether the European Union should step up,” he said.
While the EU could have a role in ensuring regional security, it would be lacking key NATO members like the UK, Norway and Canada, undermining its effectiveness, Frühling added.
In the meantime, a weakened NATO is concerning for many European nations, Frühling said, which are concerned by spillover violence from the war in Ukraine and the potential of future Russian invasions.
A ‘dilemma’ for Australian foreign policy
In the event of a US takeover of Greenland, Genauer said Australia would “face a dilemma”.
“Australia is primarily concerned with our own economic and security interests, which heavily depend on the US as a key trading partner and an important security ally in our region,” she said.
“Australia is also closely aligned with Europe and seeks to maintain economic, security and cultural ties with European countries.”
Genauer described Australia as a “strong middle power” in the international arena, which is less effective when operating alone.
To maintain global partnerships, the Albanese government would likely maintain its current two-pronged approach with the US and Europe.
“On the one hand, never directly criticising or confronting the US over its foreign policy or perceived acts of aggression,” Genauer said.
“At the same time, strengthening relationships with European and other partners around the world to prepare for a possible future in which the US is not the central, leading figure of the international architecture.”
