At Davos, a loss of trust was evident. Can NATO survive Greenland dispute?
-
Ned Temko Columnist
| London
Battle lines were drawn this week in a conflict unlike any in U.S. history: not with America鈥檚 rivals or enemies, but with its closest allies.
For now, both sides have stepped back from the brink.
They appear to have found a formula by which U.S. President Donald Trump will drop his demand that the United States be allowed to 鈥渁cquire鈥� Greenland, which is a part of Denmark. That was an ultimatum that Denmark and other European NATO members had unanimously rejected.
Why We Wrote This
The dispute over Greenland may have been resolved at Davos. But it generated so much ill will and mistrust between Washington and its European allies that NATO might not recover.
Still, the escalating tension, especially after Mr. Trump slapped tariffs on Denmark鈥檚 European supporters, has sorely tested trust within the Western alliance 鈥� to the point where some fear that NATO is in danger of becoming a dead letter.
By the time a compromise was worked out late Wednesday, one NATO leader 鈥� Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney 鈥� had urged fellow 鈥渕iddle powers鈥� to recognize a new reality.
Mr. Trump had abandoned the old rules of engagement with America鈥檚 partners, Mr. Carney suggested, in favor of a 鈥済reat power鈥� world in which the strong could simply take what they wanted. 鈥淭he rules-based order is fading,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.鈥�
This week鈥檚 tensions came against an unlikely backdrop: the snow-carpeted resort town of Davos in the Swiss Alps, site of the annual World Economic Forum.
For years, the Davos forum has been a meeting point for political leaders and policy wonks, entrepreneurs and investors, championing cooperative solutions to international challenges.
This year, however, it became the stage for a war of worldviews, between the Davos vision and the 鈥淎merica First鈥� unilateralism of the week鈥檚 most anticipated speaker, President Trump.
Since his return to the White House, Western allies have grown increasingly concerned over Mr. Trump鈥檚 readiness to deploy America鈥檚 power not just against foes, but to wrest concessions from friends, especially on trade.
Yet his insistence that America must 鈥渙wn鈥� Greenland, implying that he might use force to ensure that outcome, curdled concern into outright alarm.
European leaders warned that such a U.S. takeover would mean the end of NATO.
When European NATO countries joined Denmark in sending a small military contingent to the island last week, they intended to reassure Mr. Trump of their readiness to help beef up its defenses. The president, though, appeared to see it as a move to oppose any U.S. takeover, and responded with new tariffs on the countries concerned.
That prompted criticism not only from European governments, but even pro-Trump opposition parties, such as Nigel Farage鈥檚 Reform UK and the far-right Alternative for Germany.
By the time the president's helicopter touched down in Davos on Wednesday, European leaders were more hopeful than confident of finding a way to scale back hostilities.
Even British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who has consistently avoided publicly clashing with Mr. Trump, told Parliament that the U.S. tariffs would not weaken his insistence that Denmark and Greenland must decide the island鈥檚 future themselves.
When Mr. Trump strode to the Davos microphone, he said little at first to suggest he was in the mood for compromise.
Appearing very much the 鈥済reat power鈥� president whom Mr. Carney described, Mr. Trump extolled American wealth and power. He said allies鈥� sole hope was to ride on America鈥檚 coattails, and that those who did deals in response to his tariff pressure would thrive. He lambasted European leaders for their policies on immigration and green energy.
He dismissed the value of NATO, suggesting that only America鈥檚 allies had benefited from it.
On Greenland, he doubled down on the need for the United States to take control, proposing that his NATO partners, after freeloading off Washington for decades, should grant this one request.
鈥淵ou can say yes, and we will be very appreciative,鈥� he told them.
鈥淥r you can say no. And we will remember.鈥�
Yet he did retreat from indications he might use force against a fellow NATO state. Though that force would be 鈥渦nstoppable,鈥� he said, 鈥淚 don鈥檛 have to use force. I don鈥檛 want to use force. I won鈥檛 use force.鈥�
That, it appears, helped pave the way for NATO鈥檚 secretary general, Mark Rutte, to work out a 鈥渇ramework鈥� security deal with Mr. Trump covering Greenland and the wider Arctic region.
The president gave no details, and the understanding stopped far short of a formal agreement.
But the arrangements appear likely to involve a greatly increased U.S. military presence in Greenland and effective security control. Those provisions have been possible all along, under a 1951 agreement between Copenhagen and Washington 鈥� with the Europeans鈥� caveat that Danish sovereignty and the views of Greenland鈥檚 autonomous local government be respected.
And, crucially for the Europeans, Mr. Trump announced he was canceling his tariffs.
The key question now is how badly European trust in Washington 鈥� the bedrock of the transatlantic alliance 鈥� has been damaged by Mr. Trump鈥檚 explicit insistence that allies should make his policy priorities their own.
Europe knows it still needs America, especially to ensure that Ukraine can withstand Russia鈥檚 invasion force.
Yet transatlantic trust has plummeted over the Greenland crisis. The sense that the old bonds were fracturing, maybe forever, was evident among the audience in Davos.
They listened to Mr. Trump鈥檚 broadsides, aimed at European leaders, in near silence.
But the Canadian prime minister鈥檚 blunt message, that America had changed and other countries must build new avenues of cooperation and defend international 鈥渓egitimacy and integrity,鈥� was greeted with a quite different response, rare at these meetings.
He received a standing ovation.
