Greenland is governed by its own "parliamentary democracy within a constitutional monarchy," but Denmark makes the decisions in regards to foreign policy and military affairs (The World Factbook, CIA). Two years ago, residents of Greenland voted for greater independence from Denmark and were given more freedom in governing certain aspects of the territory. Greenlandic was also made the official language of the island and the islanders were legally recognized as a independent people (Spiegel).
The islanders hope that the oil and mineral supply contained under the ice surrounding the area will boost Greenland's economy, largely based on the fishing industry, and allow the island to be self-sustaining (Spiegel). Although it may seem that Greenland is well on the road to full sovereignty, it is still very dependent on Denmark's subsidies, its unemployment rate is high, the education system is frail, the political parties are corrupt, and the island is plagued with social problems like alcoholism and suicide (Spiegal). Also, Greenland does not have a military; defense is Denmark's responsibility.
Some of these problems can be correlated to the dependence on Denmark. Greenland has no need for a military because Denmark will defend it in case of attack. If Greenland were to become independent it would have to create a military for its protection as well as provide the things that Denmark was providing for itself. It seems as though a territory dependent on another country is put at a disadvantage in relation to the rest of the world. These dependent territory's have insufficient infrastructure and resources because they look to their "owner" countries for supplies and fortifications of infrastructure. If Greenland, which can be described as a nation-state, were to become sovereign, it would be forced to strengthen its infrastructure in order to survive. In other words, sovereignty could be a means to drive development.
In the end, Denmark may have the power and authority to grant Greenland totally autonomy, but, unfortunately, Greenland may not have the capacity to be as such.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gl.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,592880,00.html
"In the end, Denmark may have the power and authority to grant Greenland totally autonomy, but, unfortunately, Greenland may not have the capacity to be as such." Nice!
ReplyDeleteBut let's take a look at one aspect of the lack of capacity you're talking about. Is a military necessary for sovereignty? Panama, for instance, has no standing army, and Costa Rica has no military forces at all. Greenland has a small population and is well outside most zones of conflict in the world. And if Greenland were to join NATO (perhaps as a financial or resource contributor), they'd be able to enjoy NATO's security guarantee without having to maintain their own military, much as Iceland currently does.
You mentioned that Greenland is rich in natural resources. On the one hand, it seems as if it gives them greater leverage for securing the protection of other countries or alliances. On the other hand, it would seem to make them more of a potential target for invasion. Do you think Greenland's resource richness makes it more or less in need of a military?
I don't think that a military is necessary for sovereignty (as exemplified by Costa Rica and Panama), but I do believe that with sovereignty comes the decision to create a military. If independent from Denmark, Greenland would be faced with the decision to create a military. And then it becomes a question of capacity; is Greenland, once sovereign, capable of creating a military? If not, joining NATO could be a good option.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to Greenland's supply of natural resources, I think this abundance of resources will bring invasion by countries who are interested in the precious oil resources. As with the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq brought on by disputes over oil, the oil supply in the Arctic area will bring conflict because many different countries (Russia, United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway,) have professed claim on parts of the the Arctic and its oil (BBC). Greenland may need military defense if this conflict escalates.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8073363.stm