Greenland and the UN: Colony or not a colony – that was the question

Greenland has been in the spotlight since US President Donald Trump expressed interest in purchasing the island from Denmark.

This is by no means the first time Greenland has been under scrutiny internationally and its ownership of Greenland contested. Its status as a colony or “non self-governing territory” was examined by the United Nations in the 1940s and 1950s.

The following excerpt is from a paper written by UNRIC´s information officer Árni Snævarr for the UN sabbatical programme.

Non self-governing territories

After the creation of the United Nations in 1945, Greenland was put into the category of “non self-governing territories” due to pressure from the United States and France. Denmark reluctantly had to report to the world organization, but portrayed its rule of Greenland as a role model for colonial powers since its sole motive was ostensibly the protection and development of the Greenlandic people.

A commission appointed to prepare a new constitution for Denmark in 1946 put forward proposals for the future relationship between Denmark and Greenland, which were submitted to the so-called Landsraader, or elected regional assemblies for southern and northern Greenland, respectively.  The commission advanced three options: 1) Integration; 2) Independence; 3) Free Assocation. However, for reasons unexplained, only the first two options were presented to the assemblies, and the new constituition was never put to a vote in Greenland.

Officially a Danish region

As a consequence, when the constitution was adopted in 1953, Greenland officially became a recognized region in Denmark. In a 1954 declaration submitted to the UN, Denmark stated that the Greenlanders had freely agreed to become an integral part of Denmark.  Therefore, it was explained that the decolonization process should no longer apply to Greenland.

The fact that the Greenlanders were not consulted directly did not sit well with all UN member states. While much of the world was in various stages of decolonization, some considered it a dangerous precedent to let a potentially easily manipulated representative body give a green light to a continued close relationship with a colonial power. As a matter of fact, Portugal was later to single out Greenland as a counterexample, when it was criticized by the Nordic countries for continuing its colonial rule of African countries in the 1970s.

Belgium voted against

Greenland’s new status was accepted in committee at the UN with 34 votes in favour, 4 against and 12 abstentions. Later the General Assembly did the same with 45 states supporting it.  One state, Belgium, voted against the measure and 11 states abstained.

The Speaker of the Greenlandic Parliament, Lars-Emil Johansen, a “founding father” of Greenland’s independence movement, admits that if the decision had been voted upon in Greenland, it might well have had much support since it was seen, somewhat ironically, as marking the end of colonialism. Indeed, many Greenlanders had unrealistic expectations that they would soon be equal to Denmark socially, politically and economically.  Later, they would be sorely disappointed.

The birth place criteria

While Greenland was just another part of Denmark on paper, the very existence of the special Ministry for Greenland showed that this did not reflect reality. The uneven power relationship between the Danes and Greenlanders soon came under scrutiny. Wages in Greenland were much lower than in Denmark due to the different levels of productivity between the island and European Denmark according to Danish authorities. But Danish officials stationed in Greenland continued to receive Danish salaries, while their local counterparts were paid according to Greenlandic standards with the introduction of a “birth-place criteria.” This became a major source of discontentment for educated Greenlanders in the 1960s and fueled the first wave of Greenlandic nationalism, which centered on obtaining equality within the Kingdom of Denmark.  The demand for self-rule and possible independence gradually took the center stage and has dominated Greenlandic politics in the 21^st century.

From home rule to self rule

Since 2009, Greenland has been, as noted, a self-governing nation within the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland had enjoyed “Home Rule”, or autonomy limited to some internal matters, since 1979. On 25 November 2008, more than three quarters of Greenlanders voted “yes” to to a negotiated agreement on Self-government with the right to secede entirely from the Danish Kingdom through the Act on Greenland Self-Government. On Greenland’s national day in mid-summer 2009, a solemn ceremony took place in the capital Nuuk. Dressed in the Greenlandic national costume, Queen Margarethe II of Denmark, handed over the Act on Greenland Self-Government to Josef Motzfeldt, the chairman of the Greenlandic parliament.

Right to independence

Self-government grants Greenlanders the legal right to proclaim independence, but whether that would that be in their best interest is a legitimate question.  Greenland will have to increase its revenues considerably in order to compensate for the loss of Danish subsidies. According to the potential “road map” to independence, it could be triggered when Greenland is wealthy enough to be able to live without annual financial contributions from Denmark, which amount to about half of its current state budget,^[1]that is, $570 million or roughly $10,000 per capita.

Financing independence

Covering this financial shortfall is without question a tall order, but in the last few decades, many auspicious opportunities have emerged. In addition to as much as 10% of the planet’s freshwater resources and huge potential in generating hydro-electric power from its waterfalls, Greenland possesses natural resources, such as iron, diamonds, gold, copper, platinum, uranium, and titanium as well as so-called “rare earths” so vital to the international production of high technology. [2] According to some sources, Greenland could satisfy as much as 25% of the world’s needs for rare earths in the next 50 years.^[3]

Rare earths

While these rare earth elements are, at last, accessible due to climate change and the melting of Greenland’s vast icy expanses, paradoxically they will eventually help to establish a green economy since these minerals are indispensable to many “green” innovations, such as wind turbines and hybrid cars. They are also important in the production of high-end computers, smart phones, high-capacity batteries and even cruise missiles and night-vision goggle for soldiers.

Last but certainly not least, Greenland is expected to possess what may be among the world’s largest uranium reserves, a truly precious global commodity with increasing demand and a falling supply. Uranium is of immense strategic importance, both in arms manufacturing and as fuel in nuclear power plants. ^[4] 

Block grant

On 1 January 2010, authorities in Nuuk gained full control of Greenland’s non-living natural resources. Finding new ways of financing, the budget has been a priority of the Greenlandic authorities. Not only has the annual block grant been frozen at DK 3.7 billion, while government expenditures are growing, but to become independent and self-sufficient Greenland, Danish hand-outs will have to be abandoned.[5] To have any chance of becoming financially independent, Greenland will have to attract foreign investment and substantial revenues from oil and minerals.

[1] “Danish doubts over Greenland vote”, BBC News, 27 November 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7752660.stm, retrieved 3 July 2017.

[2] K. Secher, O. Johnsen, “Minerals in Greenland”, Geology and Ore 12 (2008): 1-13.

http://www.geus.dk/minex/go12.pdf, retrieved 16 July 2017, 1-13.

[3] Damien Degeorges, “The role of Greenland in the Arctic”, Laboratoire de l´IRSEM, no. 7. (2012): 47. http://www.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/164606/1766615/file/The%20Role%20of%20%20Greenland%20in%20the%20Arctic.pdf

[4] “Greenland split over uranium mining”, the Copenhagen Post, 4 July 2012

(http://cphpost.dk/business/greenland-split-over-uranium-mining, retrieved 6 July 2017).

[5] The block grant is indexed to inflation in Denmark, which is usually lower than in Greenland.