The Politics of Provocation

The incoming administration in Washington has its eyes set on Greenland. In Trumps first term, the unpredictable and unorthodox foreign policy deterred friend and foe. This time bullying is policy.

Global Politics of Acquisition

Politics is the allocation of authority and resources. To get something done in politics is to legitimize pressure; push someone and get someone else to accept that it is for the better. That is the way: Assert your interest, pose a threat, and explain your behavior in a way that spurs awe and trust in your ability to realize your want. If the interest is to take land, then you can either dispute sovereignty, bully to obtain surrender, or invade, defeat, occupy and annex. It is a good policy, but one must manage the downsides. That has to do with legitimacy.

Washington wants Greenland

Let’s take the case of Greenland. The incoming US administration is announcing that it will adopt a foreign policy of fulfilling immediate geo-economic interests through pressurizing its near abroad. US national security is at stake is the legitimization. Denmark must give up Greenland or face sanctions. Confronted with the practicalities of acting on its bold claim, the incoming administration argues that it leaves no means off the table. Washington needs access to the bulge of rare earths on the island and wants control of its side of the north pole, a surfacing geopolitical hot spot featuring trade route capacity and natural resources.

Rare earths

There are rare earths, and they are accessible. The problem with rare earths is to process them. Any plan to mine and divide these minerals into usable lumps is very difficult to actually do. Making it rentable is a far shot, but strategic resource extraction does not need to make business sense. Last year Sweden made a large finding near Kiruna, where the infrastructure is already there. The estimate is that it will be another 8 years before production can begin. China can do this, and have near monopoly on production. Russia, eastern Congo, and Greenland have known occurrences of rare earths, but are far from being able make use of them. Dependency on Chinese exports places a limit to how much Washington can escalate a trade war with Beijing. Securing their own supply would give The White House leverage. In practice, it is a long shot.

Greenland

The island of Greenland is an autonomous territory administered by Copenhagen, the capitol of Denmark. Since the 1933, Danish sovereignty over Greenland has been recognized in the sphere of international legal sovereignty; when Copenhagen handed the Virgin Islands over to the USA in 1917, Washington acknowledged Copenhagens claim to Greenland. In 1933 the international tribunal in Haag recognized Denmarks claim on Greenland, and in 1937 the widow after explorer Knud Rasmussen sold the trading post, Thule, to the Danish state, who has since claimed sovereignty over the entire territory. In his youth the King of Denmark personally patrolled Greenland which is an integrated part of the Danish commonwealth.

Greenland, caught in the middle

Danish sovereignty

The Danish parliament is sovereign and has granted the right of independence to Greenland, sketching a juridical path to independence that shall be followed by the authorities in Nuuk called Selvstyreloven, translates to: the law of autonomous rule. Selvstyreloven is the set of laws through which Greenland is currently governed. Administration of the territory costs around 1 billion $ with Copenhagen falling short of extending rights to the Greenlanders. The task is monumental. Rights endured as a citizen of Denmark are elaborate, levels above what can be mustered by states under USA. Nuuk would by itself never be able to extend rights to its citizens on any significant level. Administering inuit in the moderns world is a severe challenge, even to the Danes, who have been at it for a century. USA bullied its first nation population into non-existence many years ago. But no one is talking about USA taking over Greenlanders welfare; governing aboriginal populations are essentially difficult, but not the focus of the incoming administration; its concern is geo-strategic.

Washington vs. Denmark

A thousand years ago it was exactly Vikings from the realm of Denmark who where the first Europeans to reach what is today known as The Americas, named after a spanish explorer, Amerigo Vespucci in the late 16th century. Back then colonization of what is today USA was only in its infancy. Today USA is colonizing the rest of the world to the best of its ability; indeed an impressive endeavor. With its more than 500 military bases abroad, that is a geopolitical fact. Taking over Greenland by military force would be easy for USA, although the consequences for Washingtons status and leverage in the global politics would probably be irreparable. Posing tarifs on Denmark, would be a severe move, invoking a policy of bullying to get territory. Such policy is difficult to legitimize, even amongst dependent allies.

The disputed Kuannersuit Plateau or Kvanefjeld, where the rare earths used in advanced electronics are abundant.

Bullying as politics

Taking Greenland and turning Kuannersuit Plateau or ‘Kvanefjeld’ into a uranium mine producing rare earths within a few years is a pibe dream, but with a good deal of luck, the project could make sense to Washington in the long run. Of course, the rhetoric of calling Russia and China bullies in their own neighborhoods, would then be so hollow, as even the Europeans would be unable to bypass the hypocrisy implied. Blowing up the pibeline in the Baltic Sea has left Germans suspicious, and the mood is shifting in Europe as more and more governments realize the writing on the wall: There is a very strong bully on the block, acting abruptly and short sighted.

The geopolitical trade off

While the long term ambitions may be impossible to fulfill, the short term gains for Washington are immediate and tangible. 1) Bullying the surrounding, provoking responses that can remove focus from the declared goals of the incoming administration like battling illegal immigration and ending the war in Ukraine. Until now the promise to end the war in Ukraine in 1 day has been extended by 99 days to 100. Illegal immigration is very difficult to handle in the land of the free and the home of the brave; it would be possible to round up a few million, but then what? National emergency? The practicalities of addressing the problems in USA seems to present the government with impassable obstacles; one does only have to cast a glimpse on the national budget to see the challenges and how the incoming administration will obtain its goals has not yet been the topic of its policy.

Provocation as goal

Perhaps it is time to wack the dog even before taking office. Quite an innovative approach. Provoking Denmark by bullying it to give up Greenland may be tempting, for the incoming administration to lure the public into looking the other way, but until now Copenhagen has not reacted: If there is a military action taken, then Denmark is too weak to respond to the superpower; if tarifs ar imposed, then it will hurt Denmark for sure, but is it wise for Washington to bully one of its staunches allies? When you succeed in provoking a response, then you will be able to spin the perception of an incident, if you control the information space. When Russia invaded Ukraine after 35 years of dispute and two rounds of negotiations at Minsk, it was deemed to be an ‘unprovoked attack’ by the Western Media. The others were the provocateur hence bad. Every day for the first hundred days this message was repeated in each and every broadcast and journal, and in the end it became accepted as a fact by most people in the Western world. Just like Orwell had foreseen it. The rest of the world did not buy that story, though, and this failure to legitimize the Ukraine project amongst 7/8 of the worlds populace, has led us to the current situation, where Russia and China, are entering a partnership, increasingly seeing themselves as allies against USA, forming the kernel in an emerging economic corporation, BRICS. The trope of provocation and propaganda has worked so well for the last 100 years, but will it work indefinitely? Can Washington really succeed by directly bullying vassals? - Or, are these provocations simply an attempt of creating a smokescreen for the seemingly impossible promises on domestic issue?

In conclusion

When you push someone, you should convince yourself and somebody else, that it is for the better. Legitimacy is key. Self defeating provocation, will eventually set you back; provoking must be done with a purpose. Provokation cannot be a goal in itself. Bullying allies appears to be a very short sighted approach, and should Washington succeed in taking over the governance of Greenland by having Copenhagen succumb to its demands, that would only ease the administrative burden off the Danish state, while detrimenting its sovereignty claim: It would be a clear touchdown 7 - 0 for the bully. But Washington would soon stand with an irreparable reputation and still empty handed of the desired minerals. Is that a good deal?