When it comes to the issues on the table – schools, healthcare, independence – Tuesday’s election is “not that exceptional”, says Greenlandic politician Aaja Chemnitz Larsen. And yet, it will potentially be the most consequential in the Arctic island’s history.
What makes this general election unlike any other, says the Inuit Ataqatigiit member of the Danish parliament, is the global spotlight on it. “What we’re seeing is influence from the US, Denmark and other places. It is not the same as other elections.”
Donald Trump’s fixation with acquiring Greenland “one way or the other” , as he told Congress to laughs last week, means the US – and as a result, the world – is watching Greenland’s election like never before. Denmark, which ruled the now autonomous territory as a colony until 1953 and continues to control its foreign and security policy, is also paying unprecedented attention for fear of losing a crucial part of its kingdom.
Even before Trump’s inauguration in January, he was aggressively mooting a renewed version of his first-term idea of “buying” Greenland – which his administration sees as a valuable asset for its strategic location and its considerable natural resources – this time with threats of military action and tariffs if Denmark did not comply. This came after a whistlestop private visit to the capital, Nuuk, by his son, Donald Trump Jr, which despite being a private trip was broadcast across the world on social media by his entourage.
Among an electorate where little polling takes place, analysts are reluctant to predict whether the coalition led by Greenlandic prime minister Múte Egede, of Inuit Ataqatigiit (the ruling democratic socialist pro-independence party) will remain in power. Naleraq, Greenland’s largest opposition party, has been gaining traction with its prominent voice for independence and openness to collaborating with the US.
Society feels more divided during this election, says Chemnitz Larsen, and for the first time politicians have security with them while out campaigning. There is also public anger about a documentary by Danish broadcaster DR that claimed Denmark earned the equivalent of up to 400bn Danish kroner (£45bn) from a Greenlandic cryolite mine between 1854 and 1987. Some critics have claimed the amount is inaccurate because it did not include costs, but in Greenland the documentary has been cited as an example of colonial injustice. According to a poll for Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq, more than a third of voters say its findings will influence their vote.
This comes on top of other recent revelations over alleged mistreatment of Greenlanders by the state of Denmark. These include an IUD scandal in which 4,500 women and girls were allegedly fitted with contraception without their knowledge or consent between 1966 and 1970. Egede recently labelled the scandal genocide. And the Danish government recently did a U-turn on the use of controversial “parenting competency” tests on Greenlandic families which have led to the separation of many Inuit children from their parents.
With a voting public of only about 40,000 – Greenland’s total population is 57,000 – the margins are small.
Unlike the reaction in Copenhagen, which went into crisis mode over Trump’s apparent threats, Trump’s interest in Greenland was seen by many in Nuuk with bemusement and a hope that it could be leveraged to negotiate a better deal with Denmark or to secure a quicker route to independence.
Rasmus Leander Nielsen, head of Nasiffik, the University of Greenland’s centre for foreign and security policy, said it is an election of everyday politics colliding with geopolitical questions over Trump. “You have those two narratives kind of clashing.”
He added: “We see different dynamics going in different directions but also it’s very unpredictable what’s going to happen.”
What he is sure of is that while there may be a referendum on independence in the next election cycle, it is unlikely that Greenland will achieve independence in the next four years. “It could take a decade or longer.” Like Brexit, he said, even if Greenland voted yes in a referendum, there would still need to be lengthy discussions and negotiations.
Among the more likely scenarios, he believes, is that Greenland will try to renegotiate its relationship with Denmark within the kingdom. “Now with heightened tensions, Greenland has pretty good cards in its hands and could make the argument that they need to do something different from the status quo.”
Greenlandic politician Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam said time is of the essence when it comes to Greenland’s voice on the global stage, which she believes will not wait for Greenland to make up its mind on independence. Høegh-Dam, who left the social democratic Siumut party, which she represented in the Danish parliament, to run for Naleraq for Inatsisartut, the Greenlandic parliament, said: “I hope people will vote in people who are excellent in foreign policy because with major interest from the outside world it’s more important now.”
Interest from outside Greenland has been unprecedented, she said. “We have never seen so much international media interested in participating in our election campaigning.”
There has also been considerable foreign interest in the business world.
Drew Horn, a member of the first Trump administration and chief executive of Washington DC-based mineral investment company GreenMet, said there are “tens of billions” of dollars ready to be invested in Greenland immediately.
Tom Dans, Trump’s former Arctic commissioner and an investor, said while there is not a “quick buck” to be made – mining, he says, is a long-term business – it is an “exciting time” for Greenland. “It’s really frontier in the true sense of things,” he said.
Dans added: “We talk about outer space and trips to Mars and then when you realise Nuuk is a three-hour flight from New York City, or thereabouts, it gets interesting.”
