Greenland Biz Minister: ‘Ample Opportunities for American Investors’

Amid the ongoing furor about President Donald Trump’s designs on the Danish-held territory of Greenland, The American Conservative sat down with Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s business minister, to discuss what sort of mutually agreeable future interest the U.S. might take in the island.

Ms. Nathanielsen, thank you for your time. You recently said, “In my everyday life as a minister for natural resources in Greenland I get a lot of attention from foreign press…. I hardly ever speak to the Danish press…. I get a lot of attention from outside media, but from the Danish perspective they’re just not that interested. So I think this has been a wake-up call to Copenhagen.”  Please explain for a U.S. audience how you think the Danish press and Denmark’s government are negligent about Greenland’s importance. 

As a former colony of Denmark, there are events and structures from the past that still cast a shadow in our relationship today. Our relationship is complex and cannot be defined as either “good” or “bad.” For instance we have basic welfare such as free healthcare and free access to education. This is possible due to the economic relations between our countries. On the other hand we have cases such as the IUD scandal that demonstrate a lack of acceptance from Denmark to act quickly and assume responsibility for past actions. We are working through our conflicts. This is not a straight road with a clear map. It goes up and down and there are numerous sideroads. 

To your question on a Danish acknowledgement of the importance of Greenland, I believe this also is complex. It probably isn’t [something] that many Danes are aware of, but there certainly is an understanding of this on a political level. Of course the political level does not speak with one voice, since both the Greenlandic and Danish parliament are made up of several different political parties. So depending on whom you ask, the answer would reflect the political beliefs of [his] party.

In the U.S., we are baffled to see Denmark and the EU double down on climate rules, such as the “flatulence tax” on cows. How do you think Greenland as an independent actor should balance the competing interests of the U.S. push for growth and the European push for further stifling regulations?

In Greenland we witness the effects of the climate crisis every day—so we fully acknowledge the importance of mitigation. This requires some forms of both regulation and investments into for instance the green transition. We don’t think there is a contradiction between growth and combating the climate crisis. On the contrary, there is good business potential in the green transition. And the cost of mitigating will only increase over the next decades, so better now than later.

Greenland took a clear stand in 1982, when we decided to leave the European Union. This was the clear result of a referendum. We don’t experience pressure from the European Union to adopt their regulation. Some of our regulations are built on a European model, others on American, Canadian, or Scandinavian models. But in general, we prefer simple regulations, being a small administration. When it comes to security we stand tall with the western alliance and have been calling for more monitoring of the arctic for years. And we detect that this message is received by the Danish government.

Greenland is in the Western Hemisphere, closer to Washington, D.C. than to Copenhagen. It has a small native population, is in the middle of the Arctic shipping route, and is a country with untapped mineral and energy resources. How do you think the Dubai or Singapore model might work for Greenland—an extremely prosperous but small trade and shipping hub, connecting the continental U.S. to the rest of Europe and the Arctic, with lots of ports and mining? 

The growth this would entail would require a large and rapid influx of foreign workers, while risking an increase in inequality. This could lead to social instability. As a former colony we are very sensitive towards this. 

We are instead working on diversifying our economy in a manner the local population can follow. Our ambitions are three to five active mines at any given time, some more shipping, expanding revenue from the fishing sector and developing tourism, while avoiding mass tourism. This would benefit other sectors as well, such as construction, and grow our economy, while enabling the population to develop alongside it and make the immigration steady and manageable.

But there are ample opportunities for American investments into Greenland. We do not have a lot of production. We primarily have the first part of the value chain both in the fishing and the mineral sectors. But tech has a growing impact in these sectors and investments into this would be very interesting. 

Also our developing energy sector would be a great place for American tech investments, not to mention infrastructure and possibly in defense as well.

A concern for any U.S. administration is increasing Chinese influence in Europe and the Arctic. Are Greenlanders worried about China’s influence in the Arctic? What might be the impact on Greenland’s security and society? 

Chinese investments in Greenland are almost non-existing. We have so far seen two Chinese companies invest in the mineral sector. One of these mineral licenses was withdrawn by me ([on behalf of] our government) due to lack of progress. We are currently in a lawsuit with the company. The other investment was in the “Kvanefjeld project” in the southern part of Greenland. This project cannot move forward since it violates our ban on uranium. We do have a lot of exports to China from the fishing sector. But there is not a strong Chinese presence in Greenland. 

When marketing the business opportunities in Greenland we primarily look towards the European Union, Canada and the U.S., all of whom are our allies. We have decade-long partnerships with the EU, Canada and the U.S. in a number of fields (business, research, political, military and so on) and in our recently published foreign policy strategy we emphasize the importance of building on existing relationships especially towards the West (The U.S. and Canada). 

We are very much aware of the importance of having our infrastructure (broadly speaking) in Greenlandic and allied hands and not built or owned by others (such as China). And we are working on a foreign direct investment act that will ensure a screening of foreign investors into Greenland.

Speaking of mining, your prime minister recently stated that Greenland has its “doors open in terms of mining.” How much American tech and investment would you like to see in Greenland, and what would be your message to the incoming American administration?

There are ample opportunities for American investors to engage themselves in Greenland, not only in the mining sector, but in other sectors as well. 

Especially the mining sector could be beneficial to securing supply chains to the U.S., since we do have many of the minerals on your list of critical minerals. These could be graphite, nickel, rare earths, or others. 

Our existing agreement with the U.S. State Department is from 2019 under the first Trump administration. We have for some time been hoping for a new agreement. 

This could focus on certain minerals and projects, on data, on supply chains, research and future potentials (mapping). It would also be beneficial to look into de-risking instruments for the projects and investors, since it is a high-risk and long-term investment to engage in the mineral sector.

What might be the best model of starting a cooperation and negotiation between the U.S. and Greenland? Where do you think Denmark or the EU should fall in that equation? Will a “Compact of Free Association” model work? 

This line of questions is probably more a matter for the prime minister. But to quote him: we don’t want to be Danes, nor Americans. We are Greenlanders. Greenland is part of the Western alliance, part of NATO, and a close partner to the U.S.; and your security is our security. We are working towards independence—this is not a sprint, but a marathon, and it will not be implemented tomorrow. But regardless of the construction in the end we will remain a part of the security alliance with the U.S. and NATO.

Ms. Naaja H. Nathanielsen is the Minister for Business, Trade, Raw Materials, Justice and Gender Equality in the government of Greenland.