What the Biden administration will do on Greenland and Nord Stream 2. The Gagliano point
How will Biden move both to the Arctic question (the interest in Greenland) and to the no less complex issue of Nord Stream 2. Really relevant differences compared to Trump? Giuseppe Gagliano's analysis
Beyond the obvious – and predictable – rhetoric linked to the inauguration of the new US President Biden, seen as the new messiah by the European left intelligentsia – it is legitimate to ask how the new tenant of the White House will move in relation to both the issue. arctic (which we have dealt with several times on these pages) and on the no less complex one of Nord Stream 2.
Let's start with the first question and with the positions taken up to now by the Trump administration.
In mid-2019, US President Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo had planned to visit Denmark to discuss issues primarily related to US military and trade investments in Greenland and the growing presence of the US, Russia and China in the region .
The United States intends to buy Greenland and thereby make its claim on this region and its resources concrete. Denmark rejected any Greenland sales proposals and the US government canceled all scheduled meetings. Pompeo's visit to Greenland was canceled after China made efforts to invest in a number of airports and an abandoned military base on the island. The US goal is to counter the influence of Beijing, which in 2018 offered to establish a "polar silk road". The goal is to prevent them from gaining a foothold on the island by reserving the opportunity to make heavy investments to militarize Greenland.
In addition to economic cooperation between China and Russia in the Arctic , Mike Pompeo said the Pentagon warned that China could use its civilian research presence in the Arctic to bolster its military presence, including by deploying submarines in the region as a deterrent against nuclear attacks. “We need to carefully examine these activities and keep in mind the experience of other nations. China's aggressive behavior in other regions will affect how it tackles the Arctic. ” These comments on China's possible strategic military capabilities in the Arctic legitimately raise the question of US plans for Greenland.
Despite last year's diplomatic dispute, the Trump administration appears to have backtracked from the proposed Greenland purchase. On 22 July 2020, Mike Pompeo and Jeppe Kofod hosted a joint conference in Copenhagen . The current foreign minister said the United States is "Denmark's closest ally" and is working together to ensure an "international rules-based society". Therefore, all countries that the United States would consider adversaries present themselves as threats to the world economy (such as China) or harmful to the environment, as evidenced by the attempt to regulate sea traffic in the Arctic by flagged ships. Russian. Pompeo stressed : “I came here because Denmark is a strong partner. It is not just a question of uniting against China which undermines and threatens our national security ”. Pompeo and Kofod agreed on a common front against China in Greenland and the United States has promised that Greenland will be financially rewarded for the presence of the US Thule Air Base on the island. The US secretary of state said Denmark would be offered new and stronger trade links in exchange for opposing Chinese and Russian investment in their territories.
The US intention to increase its influence in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions through financial means was made clear by Pompeo. A soft power economic approach is being used by the United States to secure control of Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Meanwhile, U.S. influence over Greenland has already been growing since it opened a consulate on the island in June , with Danish government approval, providing $ 12.1 million in aid in April.
In addition to the economic factors, there is also a strategic-military aspect as the American ambassador to Denmark, Carla Sands, visited the Faroe Islands to ask for the possibility of opening a diplomatic consulate and allowing the United States Navy to use her ports for Arctic operations.
Such an agreement would allow the United States to create a corridor of military importance extending from Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands to Norway, which could serve as a powerful geopolitical tool against both Chinese and Russian activities in the region.
During his visit to Denmark, Pompeo also managed to arrange a meeting with Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the American Embassy in Copenhagen. Rasmussen is a member of the liberal political party "Venstre". He currently runs his own political consultancy firm called “Rasmussen Global” and is a senior consultant at the US bank Citigroup. Importantly, Rasmussen is a strong supporter of American hegemony around the world and that he was personally responsible for Denmark's participation in the 2003 Iraq war.
After their meeting, Rasmussen revealed that the topic of his interview with Pompeo was about how to prevent "autocratic regimes like Russia and China" from investing in Greenland and the Faroe Islands. Rasmussen advised Pompeo that “if we are to prevent the numerous Chinese investments in Greenland and the Faroe Islands, we need more American involvement in terms of money. […] That's why I offered my help to support US investments in Greenland and the Faroe Islands ”.
The implication is clear: the US also employs local lobby groups to push its agenda forward in the North Atlantic and Arctic regions. The next step is the continued militarization of the region, which over time could become a future battleground between the United States, China and Russia.
It appears that the United States, by setting up consulates in Greenland and the Faroe Islands , is trying to directly influence local actors in the region, particularly through financial incentives such as a € 11 million grant .
The fact that political actors are calling for the secession of Greenland and the Faroe Islands from Denmark is certainly something Washington will exploit in its favor .
If Denmark were to express its denial, the United States could start actively supporting these secessionist movements in order to "divide and rule". The United States will have no hesitation in resorting to such actions if it deems its hegemony in this way to be safeguarded to the detriment of China and Russia. We doubt that the new American administration will shift the choice of this nature especially since China and Russia are and remain the main antagonists of the US.
Let us now turn to the complex issue of Nord Stream.
Although the German Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas , hoped to be able to resolve the issue of sanctions put in place by Trump, the Sino-German cooperation that was consolidated with the signing of a new mutual investment agreement with China during the German presidency of the European Council was read as an offensive posture on the American side.
It is no coincidence that Antony Blinken, the new secretary of state, made it very clear that America not only does not intend to allow the completion of Nord Stream 2 , but that China remains the main opponent. Don't these quiet threats remember Mike Pompeo's positions?
Ultimately – beyond the bodies of the Italian left for the appointment of Biden – we are persuaded – as argued by both Arduino Paniccia and Alberto Negri – that the lines of force put in place by the Trump administration will not differ substantially from those which will be implemented by the new American administration. If a difference should emerge, we believe that it will only be in the accents, not in the substance of the foreign policy choices.
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Start Magazine at the URL https://www.startmag.it/energia/biden-groenlandia-e-nord-stream-2/ on Thu, 21 Jan 2021 09:13:19 +0000.