Ever since the time of Roosevelt and Churchill, America and Europe have been transatlantic partners in the protection and promotion of democracy.
While president Roosevelt was determined to let democracy prevail over fascism, the European countries heeded to his call after the end of World War II.
In the course of the second half of the 20th century, a steadily growing number of European countries became democratic, notably after the Fall of the Wall in 1989.
Much to widespread surprise, the EU even established itself as a democratic union of democracies. Consequently, the results of the democratic cooperation between ‘the old continent and the new world’ surpassed expectations.
Although Roosevelt and Churchill could not have imagined that the territory of Greenland would ever become a bone of contention between the US and the EU, the determination of the current president to ‘take Greenland, whether they want it or not’ has put the relations between the Atlantic partners under strain.
Nato is increasingly anxious about the effects of the dispute on the military capacity and decisiveness of the alliance.
The unease was intensified by the unambiguous statement of Danish PM Frederiksen that military action by the US against Greenland would mean the end of Nato.
In order to defuse tensions, Nato secretary-general Rutte suggested that America and Europe should cooperate in securing the safety of Greenland against Russian and Chinese threats.
On the diplomatic front, talks are taking place between the foreign secretaries of the US on the one side and Greenland and Denmark on the other.
However, PM Frederiksen has expressed grave concern that the worst is still to come.
In the meantime, it has become clear that the legal status of Greenland poses serious problems. The island in the Arctic used to be an integral part of the European Communities after Denmark’s accession in 1973.
Its status changed in 1985, when the inhabitants of the island preferred to become an Overseas Country or Territory.
While some commentators argue that Greenland is not a full part of the EU, others posit that sovereignty over the territory of Greenland rests with Denmark and that, in effect, the citizens of Greenland are citizens of the European Union too.
As EU citizens, they are entitled to benefit from the EU’s efforts ‘to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples’.
For politicians and scholars, the question as to whether or not Greenland is a full member of the EU constitutes a formidable legal problem.
Article 42, paragraph 7, TEU ordains that other member states must provide aid and assistance if one of them is attacked.
It is not difficult to grasp the far-reaching consequences: in case the US were to violate the territorial integrity of a member state of the EU, its actions would amount to a declaration of war on the Union.
Impossible as that proposition would have seemed to Roosevelt and Churchill, the current US president is doubling down on his threats by announcing in a post on his personal network that ‘the US needs Greenland for its National Security’.
Since the EU started as an organisation to guarantee peace among its member states, it may not come as a surprise that the executive institutions of the Union are hesitantly considering the very prospect of a Euro-American war.
Despite the initiatives from other players, Brussels remains silent.
As EUobserver reported, the European Commission has not yet reached a position despite commissioner Kubilius for defence recently stating that the EU should help to provide security to Greenland, if Denmark requested the Union to do so.
Despite this flurry of frantic activities, a democratic opportunity to arrive at an amicable solution of the artificial conflict is being overlooked.
As the US and the EU have a long history of democratic cooperation, the European Parliament may take the lead in avoiding conflict.
Taking into account that the American Constitution grants the right to declare war exclusively to Congress, parliament president Robera Metsola could take the initiative to address the speaker of the House and his counterpart in the Senate in a demarche to prevent the unforeseen and unwanted outbreak of an armed conflict between America and Europe.
As Congress does not want to be dragged into a transatlantic conflict either, the bone of contention between democratic partners could be resolved democratically.
Become a subscriber and support EUobserver's journalism in 2026.
Jaap Hoeksma is a philosopher of law, and the author of the Theory of Democratic Integration.
Jaap Hoeksma is a philosopher of law, and the author of the Theory of Democratic Integration.