Only Greenland must decide its future, Starmer says

The genesis of this diplomatic spat lay in reports that President Trump had, with varying degrees of seriousness, inquired about the possibility of the United States acquiring Greenland. This audacious proposition, reminiscent of historical territorial purchases, quickly escalated from an internal White House discussion to a major international incident. Greenland’s Prime Minister, Jens Frederik Nielsen, wasted no time in responding, declaring "that’s enough now" and succinctly describing the very idea of US control over the island as nothing short of a "fantasy." His sentiments were echoed, perhaps even more forcefully, by Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who asserted that "the US has no right to annex any of the three nations in the Danish kingdom," a direct challenge to the underlying premise of Trump’s interest. The Danish realm, comprising Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, stands united in its commitment to the self-determination of its constituent parts.

It was against this backdrop of international indignation and a firm rejection from the legitimate authorities of Greenland and Denmark that Sir Keir Starmer was pressed on the issue. Asked directly whether he would also tell President Trump to keep "hands off Greenland," his reply was an emphatic "Yes." This monosyllabic affirmation, devoid of caveats or diplomatic niceties, stood out. He elaborated, "Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark must decide the future of Greenland and only Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark." Sir Keir underscored the deep ties between the nations, stating, "And Denmark is a close ally in Europe, is a Nato ally and it is very important that the future of Greenland is for the Kingdom of Denmark and for Greenland themselves and only for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark." His repetitive emphasis on the singular authority of Greenland and Denmark served to cement his position, leaving no room for misinterpretation regarding British Labour’s respect for national sovereignty and alliance commitments.

Starmer’s forthrightness on Greenland’s future was particularly notable given the strategic importance of the island. Greenland, the world’s largest island, holds immense geopolitical significance, particularly in the rapidly changing Arctic region. Its vast natural resources, including rare earth minerals, and its strategic location for shipping routes and military installations, have attracted increasing attention from global powers, including China and Russia. Any attempt to unilaterally alter its status would not only violate international law and the principles of self-determination but also destabilize a crucial region, potentially igniting new geopolitical rivalries. By firmly backing Denmark and Greenland, Starmer aligned the prospective foreign policy of a Labour government with established international norms and the safeguarding of an allied nation’s territorial integrity.

This resolute stance on Greenland, however, stood in stark contrast to Sir Keir’s more circumspect comments on a different, equally sensitive international issue: the alleged actions of the United States in seizing the Venezuelan President and his wife. When questioned about the legality of these recent events, the Labour leader’s language became considerably less definitive. "The US will have to justify the action it has taken," Sir Keir stated, adding a general commitment that "we will always defend the international rule of law." Yet, despite repeated opportunities, he notably "ducked offering a straight answer as to whether the US had acted within international law."

This perceived discrepancy in approach highlights the complex tightrope that a major political figure must walk in international relations. While the case of Greenland involved a clear-cut issue of national sovereignty and an ally’s territorial integrity, the situation in Venezuela presented a more intricate challenge. The political landscape in Venezuela has been fraught with internal strife, international sanctions, and competing claims of legitimacy, making any pronouncement on specific US actions fraught with diplomatic peril. Directly condemning a key ally like the United States on such a contentious issue could have far-reaching implications for the UK’s "special relationship" and broader foreign policy objectives. Starmer’s cautious response suggests a recognition of these complexities, opting for a general affirmation of the rule of law while implicitly urging the US to provide a robust legal rationale for its actions, rather than issuing an immediate judgment.

The underlying message from Starmer’s dual responses, however, remains consistent with a commitment to international law and principled foreign policy. In the Greenland case, the principle of self-determination and the sanctity of an allied nation’s borders were paramount and unambiguous. The idea of a powerful nation simply buying another’s territory, without the consent of its people or government, flies in the face of modern international norms and the post-colonial order. By unequivocally rejecting such a notion, Starmer positioned Labour as a defender of these fundamental principles, sending a clear signal to both allies and potential adversaries about the red lines a future Labour government would uphold.

Conversely, in the Venezuelan context, while refraining from an outright condemnation, Starmer’s insistence that the "US will have to justify the action it has taken" and his pledge to "always defend the international rule of law" still underscored a commitment to accountability. It implies that even the closest of allies are not exempt from scrutiny when their actions touch upon the sensitive areas of international legal frameworks and the sovereignty of other nations, however troubled their internal politics might be. This nuanced approach suggests a foreign policy that seeks to balance alliance loyalties with a steadfast adherence to universal legal principles, avoiding blanket endorsements while demanding justification for actions that raise international eyebrows.

Ultimately, Sir Keir Starmer’s definitive declaration on Greenland serves as a powerful reminder of the enduring importance of national sovereignty and the right of self-determination in the 21st century. It reinforces the notion that even in an era of complex geopolitical maneuverings and unconventional diplomacy, certain fundamental principles must remain sacrosanct. His words offered a clear rebuttal to any notion that a nation’s territory can be treated as a commodity, underscoring the deep respect due to the people of Greenland and their sovereign ties to the Kingdom of Denmark. It also delineated a potential foreign policy approach for a future Labour government: one that is unequivocally principled when the lines are clear, and judiciously cautious when the international landscape is more ambiguous, always with an eye towards upholding the rule of law.