To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the objectives of the administration of the United States in relation to the status of Greenland.
My Lords, the Prime Minister has been clear that Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and that the future of its constitutional arrangements is a matter for the people and Government of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The collective threat that we face in the Arctic is from Russia. That is why NATO has stepped up, including by increasing our collective defence spending, to ensure that we defend the region from increasing Russian threats.
My Lords, I agree with the Minister’s comments. However, does she agree that an annexation of Greenland by the United States—the President of the United States has given a timetable for this happening by the end of his current term—would be one of the most dangerous pivotal points for UK and European security into the future since 1945? Does she also agree that one of the lessons we should learn is that we should have been far more assertive much earlier with our European allies around our view on that annexation? Perhaps a little bit more notice would have been taken if we had not just wished that the subject would go away and evaporate.
We are completely clear in the position that we take, as are our allies and partners, and the noble Lord will have seen that in the statement that was made a few days ago. Yesterday, the noble Lord reminded me that we travelled to the Arctic together at about this time last year or two years ago. I know how much interest he takes in the importance of the security of the Arctic region, and I can assure him that the Government share his views.
Are Ministers seeking to persuade President Trump that he can achieve all US security objectives in and around Greenland by working with Denmark through NATO and using the existing treaty it has with Denmark? Also, to show that Arctic security is a genuine NATO priority, is the UK considering deploying at least some military capability of our own to that collective endeavour?
We keep in constant and close contact with our friends and allies in the United States, on this and many other issues. Noble Lords will be aware of the phone call that took place between the Prime Minister and President Trump last night, where these issues were discussed. Obviously, I am not going to respond to what may be several hypothetical positions that get put to me today, but I note what the noble Lord says, and I interpret it broadly as support for the very clear position that the United Kingdom is taking on the need for the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark to be the people who decide what happens to Greenland.
My Lords, I declare my interest as being half-Danish and having studied at the University of Aarhus. Since 1951, it has been perfectly open to the United States to establish more military bases and a bigger military presence in Greenland. If the issue is not military but to extract minerals, it is perfectly possible for the United States to negotiate agreements to mine the minerals, as Chinese companies have done. Is the Minister aware of the position of Members of Congress? Are they likely to support this very aggressive stance taken by the US President?
I should imagine that, as in this Parliament, there will be a range of views on any issue on any given day. The key principle and guiding point that will shape the UK’s position on that question, and on any others concerning the territory of Greenland, is that those decisions should be taken by Greenlanders and, on the issue of sovereignty, by the Kingdom of Denmark together with the people of Greenland.
My Lords, we are talking about the security of the Arctic. The United States of course has legitimate interests, but so does Denmark, Greenland, Finland, Sweden, Norway and, more recently, the United Kingdom. Following my noble friend’s Question, the reality is that, if the US takes a unilateral action against the NATO alliance, it will not increase security but damage it and open the door for Russia and China to make more incursions into our space. Can the Americans understand that they are going down the wrong path?
Any question that starts with “if” is, by definition, a hypothetical—to which I am not in a position to give a concrete response. All I would say is that, clearly, anything that causes dispute between NATO allies would be very pleasing for Vladimir Putin to see, and that is not something that we want to bring about.
My Lords, the Minister has been entirely consistent. On Tuesday, she told the House that, should Denmark wish to enter into a negotiation about the future of Greenland, it is free to do so, with the consent of the people of Greenland. She said it again today and I agree with her; she is right. However, can she explain to the House why that impeccable logic does not apply to the people of the Chagos Islands, who were not even consulted before their homeland was surrendered to Mauritius?