President Trump is fixated on making strategically important and mineral-rich Greenland part of the US
CELAL GUNES/ANADOLU VIA GETTY IMAGES
The outrage is palpable. In Nato capitals, within Whitehall, among business leaders and across the political spectrum — uniting both Reform and the Greens — President Trump’s announcement of punitive tariffs on allied Nato countries that do not support his demand to annex Greenland has been met with bemusement, fury and despair.
Sir Keir Starmer has been refreshingly forthright. He called the move “completely wrong” and said Britain would pursue this directly with the US administration. Kemi Badenoch insisted the sovereignty of Greenland could be decided only by the people of Greenland. President Macron said France would not be influenced by intimidation or threat. And politicians in Denmark, united as never before in fear and anger, have said that the threat to impose a 10 per cent tariff within two weeks was turning friends into enemies.
Mr Trump’s move was as baffling as it was unexpected. The world has learnt that the US president is given to mood swings, to sudden policy changes and to bold moves that break convention but can cut through diplomatic deadlock. Whatever the scepticism of his critics, he has had notable foreign policy successes: thwarting Iran’s nuclear ambitions; ending, almost without bloodshed, the dictator of Venezuela’s repressive rule; halting the fighting in Gaza with a concerted attempt to resolve the long-term issues in the region.
• Trump-Greenland latest: US tariffs are wrong, Starmer says
• From military bases to Grok, how Europe could retaliate
His relentless pursuit, however, of his idée fixe — that the United States should not only reinforce its global defences in Greenland but make this mineral-rich Arctic territory an integral part of the United States — is a monumental act of diplomatic self-harm. John Bolton, Mr Trump’s national security adviser during his first term, called it “his most dangerous and destructive assertion during the five years of his presidency”. Not only was it without precedent, it was foolish and contrary to fundamental American interests.
It is not only the crude attempt to use tariffs, measures normally used to regulate global trade, as a stick to beat anyone challenging Mr Trump’s policies that has angered the Europeans. It is the promise of economic harm to fellow Nato members if they oppose Washington’s wish to acquire territory, by invasion if necessary, belonging to a loyal, if small, military ally. For Britain, still attempting to nail down a new trade agreement with the US, a further hike in tariffs would be disastrous, as leading businessmen yesterday declared. For Sir Keir, it would be a humiliating mockery of his vaunted attempt to protect Britain’s huge exports to the US by cultivating good personal relations with the capricious and moody president.
In what seems a temper tantrum, Mr Trump accused the eight Nato allies that last week sent a token force (in Britain’s case, only one officer) to Greenland of playing “a very dangerous game”. They were not. It was a first symbolic step in answering Mr Trump’s justified complaints that the Europeans do not do enough to contribute to, and pay for, Nato operations, including the defence of the Arctic. But Mr Trump evidently saw this as a challenge to his intention of acquiring Greenland. The only dangerous game is the huge rift this has opened in the Atlantic alliance — a rift that will delight both Russia and China.
Many Europeans are now talking openly of retaliatory measures if the tariffs are imposed. Some propose closing US bases in Europe and other self-defeating moves. Others counsel caution, noting that Mr Trump often changes his mind. Mr Bolton warns however that “all too often, Trump actually means what he says”. The best response by Sir Keir and the Europeans is to play upon the growing doubts within Congress, including among Republicans, on the Greenland adventurism. Swift diplomatic footwork may persuade Congress to act. In the end, it is up to Americans to persuade their president he has set out on the wrong course.