Denmark’s former ambassador to NATO, veteran diplomat Michael Zilmer-Johns, had harsh words for the Trump administration as Danish and American officials prepare to discuss the future of the small European nation. semi-autonomous territory of Greenland.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said he will meet with Danish officials next week, but has not specified when or where. Zlimer-Johns criticized the Trump administration’s stated intention to make the world’s largest and most strategically located island. part of the UShe spoke pragmatically and optimistically about the future of the US-Denmark relationship, and the future of the NATO transatlantic alliance that the US has led for decades.
Below are highlights from CBS News’ interview with the Danish diplomat.
CBS News: How do you feel about this speech at the White House about taking Greenland?
Michael Zilmer-Johns: Well, I was surprised, as I think almost every Dane and every Greenlander, because the US, in our opinion, has everything it needs for security in Greenland. There is a huge base there. It has the potential to build. We have a 1951 defense agreement with the US on Greenland.
I’m angry because I think it’s an attack on an ally that has stood up to the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, all over the world. Where we were asked to participate, we did so. So I think it’s totally ungrateful.
CBS News: Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that if Trump attacked Denmark to take Greenland, it would be the end of NATO. In his words, “everything stops, including NATO, and therefore the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.” As a former high representative of Denmark in NATO, how much do you fear the end of NATO?
Zilmer-Johns: I’m worried, but I’m still confident that in the end, better advice will prevail, that we’ll find some kind of agreement with the Trump administration on Greenland so that NATO can continue as it should. It will be a very different NATO, however, because it is clear that the Americans are withdrawing from Europe and that Europe will advance. Therefore, NATO will be more European in the future. But we hope to keep it together.”
CBS News: There have been criticisms that a potential use of military force by the US would essentially pit one NATO member against another NATO member for the nearly 80 years of this alliance. Do you think the use of US military force would trigger Article 5 (my addendum: the mutual defense clause that says an attack on one member is an attack on all 32 NATO nations)?
Zilmer-Johns: I mean, of course, it is absurd to have such a situation where two NATO countries would be in a military conflict. If it was an outside power that did this to Denmark, then of course that would trigger Article 5. In a situation where the strongest NATO member would attack little Denmark, I think this would be a situation where NATO would not be able to get involved because it is a conflict within NATO and not between NATO and a foreign power.
I still find it very hard to imagine that we would see actual battles between Danish and American soldiers. But of course, the Danish soldiers in Greenland have a standing order to defend the territory against any attack.
But if it were to happen, in the end, I think the Danish government would tell the Danish troops to leave, of course, a military conflict between the biggest military power in the world and little Denmark, that’s the inevitable result.
CBS News: Would an independent Greenland be able to defend itself against security problems, against strategic opponents? Here, like China, Russia, the White House, as President Trump said?”
Zilmer-Johns: Greenland has 60,000 inhabitants. It’s a huge land mass, the size of most of Western Europe, so obviously he couldn’t do it alone. He would need a stronger partner. It could be Denmark, it could be the USA, but the Greenlanders themselves have said that if they become independent – and when they need to – they will remain a member of NATO.
CBS News: After World War II, the United States offered about $100 million to buy Greenland from Denmark during that golden age. Right now, with inflation, that rises to about $12-13 million. What do you think of the value of that number applied to Greenland?
Zilmer-Johns: I think the whole principle of selling Greenland is in doubt. That is something that could have happened in another era where there were many colonial powers and Greenland was a colony at the time and there were British colonies throughout Africa. And in 1916 we sold the Western Isles to the Americans. So at that stage, it wasn’t something that would have been unthinkable. But today, with Greenland’s current status, it’s simply not on the table. So whatever the amount, it would never be realistic, or something anyone in Greenland could imagine.
CBS News: Is the White House imperial in its intentions?
Zilmer-Johns: I think you can put it that way. When you look at the new security strategy, when you look at what President Trump is saying about the Western Hemisphere and the need for control and the need to expand the US, that looks very much like imperialism in my eyes.
Traditionally, America was at the forefront of decolonization and forcing or pressuring Europeans to give up their colonies. I don’t think this approach will continue after President Trump. Even if his MAGA movement or the Republicans should continue to control the White House. I think it’s Trump’s personal view, that anachronistic view of colonialism, more imperialism.
CBS News: Is there anything else you would like to add to the discussion points? A message for President Trump, a message for Americans?
Zilmer-Johns: I would like to say that we are ready to cooperate with America in all aspects to ensure legitimate security interests in and around Greenland. And we will invite you to it. Thank you very much