Since returning to office, US President Donald Trump has renewed threats to take control of Greenland, citing security concerns and the risk posed by Russian or Chinese influence on the Arctic territory.
“I’d love to make a deal with them; it’s easier. But one way or the other, we’re gonna have Greenland,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on Sunday.
In reality, Trump’s threats are nothing new, and they resurfaced following the United States’ intervention in Venezuela on 3 January.
President Nicolás Maduro’s capture in a lightning overnight operation has sparked concern among European leaders over how far Washington could be willing to go to seize control of the island.
Trump’s comments have also triggered warnings in Europe that US military intervention against Greenland — part of the Kingdom of Denmark — would plunge NATO into crisis and potentially trigger the end of the alliance.
If Greenland were attacked, could Europe actually step in, and under what clause? The Cube, Euronews’ fact-checking team, has examined Europe’s legal and military obligations if the US were to intervene in Greenland.
What is Greenland and why does it matter?
Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory outside the European Union but within the Kingdom of Denmark — which is itself an EU member.
Ordinarily, Greenland, as an autonomous part of Denmark, should benefit from protection under NATO’s Article 5, should it face an attack. According to this article, an armed attack against one or more NATO members constitutes an attack against all members of the alliance.
According to experts, such a scenario could push NATO into crisis, given that the US is a member of NATO and the military alliance is designed to protect member states from an external aggressor, not from each other.
But there is a second, lesser-known pact that could defend Greenland in the event of a US attack: Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union.
On Monday, the European Commissioner for Defence and Space, Andrius Kubilius, told Reuters that this article 42.7 obliged member states to provide aid and assistance to another member state — in this case Denmark — in the event of armed aggression on its territory.
Article 42.7
Tim Haesebrouck, assistant professor of international politics at Ghent University, told The Cube, Euronews’ fact-checking team, that one of the clause’s strengths is that it can be activated by a single country without requiring advance consensus.
It says that other member states have “an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power” to the country that triggered it.
Once it is invoked, other countries are expected to respond, but how they do so is deliberately open — meaning assistance could be economic, political or military.
The last and only time the clause was invoked was following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, when France requested assistance to fight the so-called Islamic State group (IS).
However, Greenland’s status complicates the implementation of the clause. Given that the island left the European Economic Community (the precursor to the EU) in 1985 and is now classified as an Overseas Country and Territory, most EU laws — including defence provisions — do not apply to it in full.
According to Aurel Sari, public international law professor at the University of Exeter, there has not been an authoritative ruling on whether Article 42.7 extends to territories such as Greenland.
If it is applicable, there are limits to the extent it can be legally enforced, as defence matters fall outside the jurisdiction of EU courts.
“In the midst of an armed conflict, if your territory is under attack by a major power, by a great power like the United States, you’re not really going to turn to the courts to try to enforce this assistance,” Sari told The Cube.
No guarantee of military defence
Even if applicable to Greenland, Article 42.7 is not an automatic military defence guarantee, although military support is an available option in the clause.
According to Haesebrouck, it is uncertain whether Europe realistically has the defence capacity to confront Washington militarily, with an imbalance of power favouring the US at each step of escalation.
“The United States would always have escalatory dominance, which actually means that in every stage of escalation, the United States could simply escalate to a higher level and be sure that they will win,” he said.
From a legal perspective, the clause should not be understood as a promise of automatic military force, and it isn’t the only kind of available aid.
“It’s not only military assistance that is relevant and can be provided in these kinds of circumstances,” Haesebrouck said. “It could also be political, it could be exerting economic pressure.”
These would depend on each member state’s political will to provide support. On Tuesday, Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said the country would like to take on a bigger role in contributing to the Arctic’s military security, although he insisted that the NATO framework should be part of any solution.
“At the end of the day, it really depends and is based on a political commitment,” Sari told The Cube.
