Donald Trump's renewed interest in acquiring Greenland sparks debate. Explore potential scenarios, from economic pressure to military options.
In recent weeks, US President-elect Donald Trump has demonstrated a renewed interest in assuming control of Greenland, a largely self-governing territory of Denmark situated in the Arctic, and the planet's largest island.
He initially indicated a desire to purchase Greenland in 2019, during his initial term as president, but this week his stance became more pronounced, declining to dismiss the potential use of economic or military force to gain control of it.
Officials from Denmark and Europe have offered negative responses, stating that Greenland is not available for purchase and its territorial sovereignty must be upheld.
Therefore, how might this unusual situation unfold, with two Nato allies in disagreement over a substantial territory which is 80% covered in ice but possesses considerable untapped mineral resources?
Furthermore, how might the aspirations for independence among Greenland's population of 56,000, who have been under Danish governance for 300 years, influence the final outcome?
Here we examine four conceivable scenarios for Greenland's future.
There exists some speculation that Trump's action is merely posturing, an effort to prompt Denmark to enhance Greenland's security in the face of the threat posed by both Russia and China seeking influence within the region.
Last month, Denmark announced a new $1.5 billion (£1.2 billion) military package for the Arctic. It had been prepared prior to Trump's remarks, but its announcement just hours afterwards was described by the Danish defence minister as an "irony of fate".
Marc Jacobsen, associate professor at the Royal Danish Defence College, is of the opinion that this is a case of Trump "positioning himself before entering office" while Greenland is utilizing the occasion to acquire greater international authority, as an important measure toward independence.
Therefore, even if Trump were now to lose further interest in Greenland, which Professor Jacobsen believes is the most probable scenario, he has certainly drawn attention to the issue.
However, independence for Greenland has been a topic of discussion for numerous years, and certain individuals suggest the debate could even move in the opposite direction.
Within Greenland, there is a general agreement that independence will eventually occur, and also that should Greenland vote in favor of it, Denmark will accept and officially approve it.
Nevertheless, it is also improbable that Greenland would vote for independence unless its populace receives assurances that they can retain the subsidies they currently receive from Denmark to fund areas such as healthcare and the welfare system.
One possible subsequent step is a free association – akin to the arrangement the US currently has with Pacific states such as the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau.
Denmark has previously opposed this status for both Greenland and for the Faroe Islands, but according to Dr Gad, the current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is not definitively against it.
The recent discussions "might persuade [Frederiksen] to say - better to keep Denmark in the Arctic, keep some kind of connection to Greenland, even if it's a looser one", he adds.
However, even if Greenland manages to separate from Denmark, it has become apparent in recent years that it cannot separate from the US. The Americans never truly departed after assuming control of the island during World War Two and view it as crucial for their security.
An agreement in 1951 affirmed Denmark's fundamental sovereignty over the island but, in practice, granted the US whatever it desired.
Dr Gad indicated that Greenland officials had been in contact with the previous two US administrations regarding Washington's role.
There has been speculation that Trump's economic rhetoric represents potentially the greatest threat to Denmark – with the US significantly increasing tariffs on Danish, or even EU, goods, thereby compelling Denmark into concessions of some kind regarding Greenland.
Professor Jacobsen states that Danish governments have been preparing for this, and not solely because of the Arctic territory.
Possible options for raising tariffs include invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Benjamin Cote of international law firm Pillsbury informed the website MarketWatch.
One of the principal Danish industries potentially affected by this is pharmaceuticals. The US receives products such as hearing aids and the majority of its insulin from Denmark, as well as the diabetes drug Ozempic, produced by the Danish company Novo Nordisk.
The "nuclear option" appears improbable, but with Trump declining to rule out military action, it must be taken into consideration.
Fundamentally, it would not be difficult for the US to assume control, given that they already maintain bases and a substantial number of troops in Greenland.
That being said, any utilization of military force by Washington would generate an international incident.
Dr Gad suggests that Trump sounds like Chinese President Xi Jinping discussing Taiwan or Russia's Vladimir Putin discussing Ukraine.