By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A joint statement defending Greenland, signed by several European countries but excluding the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, was released following renewed concerns about a potential US seizure of the island. The statement, also signed by Greenland, asserted that only Denmark and Greenland can make decisions regarding the island. The European Commission responded by reiterating its commitment to Greenland’s territorial integrity and the importance of US relations while remaining silent on the US’s actions regarding Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. This omission highlights a diplomatic challenge for Brussels, which views the US as a strategic ally.
Read the original article here
EU absent from declaration defending Greenland – that’s the core of the matter here. The absence of the European Union from a declaration supporting Greenland’s sovereignty, amidst rumblings of potential interference by the United States, speaks volumes. It’s a noticeable omission, especially considering the EU’s role as a major economic and political force on the world stage. Why wasn’t the EU present?
The EU, fundamentally, is an economic and trade organization. While there’s a degree of military cooperation among member states, the EU itself doesn’t possess a standing army or a formal defense pact in the same vein as NATO. This means its focus and capabilities lie elsewhere, mainly in fiscal and trade matters. Therefore, when a situation like the one unfolding around Greenland arises – a potential geopolitical flashpoint with defense and territorial integrity at its heart – the EU’s response is naturally limited. The EU, in this particular scenario, is like asking a business association to intervene in a heated street brawl. Its strengths lie in different areas.
It’s also worth remembering that the major European military powers have already clearly expressed their support for Denmark, the nation to which Greenland belongs. This support was channeled through a joint statement signed by leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, among others. These are key players within the EU, and their collective voice carries considerable weight. By making this statement through the Danish Prime Minister’s Office, these countries could demonstrate their solidarity while seemingly bypassing the need for a formal EU declaration. This illustrates a more nuanced approach, where individual member states address the issue directly.
The fact that the UK was part of the joint statement is also noteworthy. The UK has recently left the EU, further illustrating that the EU’s power is not military, or even very political. This underscores the separate paths these entities now tread. This allows the UK to join in the declaration.
Another factor contributing to the EU’s absence is the nature of the situation itself. The threat, if any, appears to come from the United States. While the US and the EU are allies, there is a complex relationship at play, and it’s likely that the EU is playing a cautious game, not wanting to escalate tensions or appear to be directly opposing a powerful ally. This reluctance is probably especially true given the ongoing internal political divisions within the EU. The EU might prefer a strategy that involves quiet diplomacy and behind-the-scenes discussions, rather than a highly visible public stance.
The EU’s ability to act quickly is also hindered by its internal processes. Decisions require consensus, a challenging process when dealing with 27 diverse member states. Reaching a unified position on a sensitive issue like Greenland would take time, and in a rapidly evolving situation, that delay could prove critical. It’s simply easier to let individual nations express their views, without the need for a complex and time-consuming bureaucratic procedure.
Some see this whole episode as a potential “punk-checking” move. That is, that the EU is being forced to step up to the plate and act. This might be seen as a way of testing the willingness of European nations to engage more actively in global security matters, especially when dealing with a powerful nation like the United States. The EU might prefer to allow individual nations to handle this situation.
Ultimately, the EU’s absence is a reflection of its nature: an economic and political union, not a military one. It highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the EU’s structure and its role in international affairs. The EU’s members have chosen to support Greenland and Denmark, demonstrating their commitment to the existing agreements and the territory’s right to self-determination. The EU itself, in the meantime, remains a significant player, though its influence operates through other channels and in different ways.