JUANA SUMMERS, HOST:
President Trump's calls for the U.S. to take over the territory have sparked alarm and outrage. Denmark, which is responsible for Greenland's security, recently announced that it would further boost its defense spending. Last week, lawmakers on Capitol Hill held a hearing focused on Trump's ambitions.
In Greenland, Naaja Nathanielsen was watching. She's running for parliament in next month's elections, and I met her at her office in Nuuk earlier today. On one wall next to her desk, a piece of art caught my eye. It's an illustration of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, gavel in hand. On the lectern, the words, fight for the things that you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.
I started by asking Naaja Nathanielsen for her reaction when she heard Trump's goal to take over her country, which she learned of when seeing a post from Trump's Truth Social platform.
NAAJA NATHANIELSEN: Well, I read a social media post 23 December. I actually took it much more serious, and I think also I got this feeling that this is going to be something we're going to be debating for a long time.
SUMMERS: What was it about what he said and what he's been saying that made you take it more seriously?
NATHANIELSEN: I think it was use of control and ownership which had rendered a more serious vibe to it, if you will. And also, I think since then, I've seen more and more people come out with similar stances and different suggestions - some in form of meme, some in form of just social media posts, some in form of op-eds in serious papers, now latest Senate hearing, right? So I think it has degrees of seriousness to it now that it didn't have the last time around.
SUMMERS: I don't know how much of that Senate hearing you were able to see or digest, but what do you make of some of the arguments coming out of the States? There are a number of bills moving through our government suggesting - authorizing the president, President Trump, to go into negotiations to purchase Greenland, suggesting - a recent bill suggesting Greenland being renamed as Red, White and Blueland. What do you think when you hear that?
NATHANIELSEN: Well, first of all, I watched the Senate hearing, and I was quite offended by the idea that we are a commodity for sale. People forget that we are actually a people. We are a people in our own right, with our own culture. We don't want to be Americans. It does not mean we don't want to trade with America or have connections to America, but we are not Americans. So I think it's offending on many levels and shows a lack of insight, also in diplomacy, I think, because I don't believe in this bullying tactic. I don't think that's a way to gain true allies and true partnerships, and I think it's a very short-termed way of trying to get your way. History has shown us that is not a way to obtain lasting peace.
SUMMERS: I think if President Trump or a member of his administration or an ally were sitting here, they'd make the case that the interest that the U.S. has in Greenland is rooted in Arctic security and the strategic location of this island. What do you make of the security-based argument? Of course, the countries have had relationships for a long time. The United States has had, and still has, a military base here. What do you make of that?
NATHANIELSEN: Well, we've been all along saying we have an over 80-year-long relationship with the U.S., and we do recognize we're part of the American interest fair (ph) in terms of national security. And we've been pushing for many years now the idea to have more monitoring of the Arctic, both in submarine and in the air, so we don't oppose that. But again, it does not follow from that that we want to be American or that the U.S. needs ownership of Greenland to obtain these goals. It is absolutely possible without the use of force or threats or acquirement.
SUMMERS: I'm curious - what kind of relationship would you like to see between our two countries moving forward? We have that long - that decadeslong history. What is a way that there could be a relationship between Greenland and the U.S. that benefits the Greenlandic people who live here? What would you say?
NATHANIELSEN: I think just rewind, like, eight months because that's - we had a good relationship. We had a memorandum of understanding that we wanted to expand on mineral exploration, and we also wanted to discuss further military presence in Greenland in terms of installations that could have dual use, so both benefiting military purposes but also the people of Greenland. We had a good relationship, and we were positive towards both American investments and collaboration, and that has been pretty hard-hit the last couple of months.
SUMMERS: You're saying we had a good relationship.
NATHANIELSEN: We had a good...
SUMMERS: We had good opinions. That is in the past tense. Can you just paint a picture for us of what this has done for people here, for their views of Americans, for their views of the relationship with America?
NATHANIELSEN: A lot of people are struggling to remind themselves that America also has good people, that we have friends in America, that America is an ally, because, frankly, the last couple of months have shown an America that is a bad ally, that is a bully that doesn't respect our democracy, doesn't respect our government, that treat us as a commodity, that seems indifferent to what the Greenlandic people want. And that is both hurtful and frightening because we are microstate. We are such a small population. We totally rely on a good relationship with a big partner. So for us, it has really damaged, I think, our relationship, and I think it's very sad because we have so much to gain from each other. I think it was an open door. There was absolutely no barriers towards American interest into Greenland just a couple of months ago.
SUMMERS: That was Naaja Nathanielsen. She's running for parliament and has served as minister of business, trade, mineral resources, justice and gender equality in the Greenlandic government. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
