Three topics that will decide Greenland’s upcoming election
On March 11th, Greenland will hold a parliamentary election with more international attention than usual. Polar Journal AG looks at three topics that form divisions among the campaigning politicians.
Last week, amidst continued speculation about American interest in the territory, Greenland’s prime minister Muté B. Egede announced that a parliamentary election will be held on March 11th.
Now, a week since the election was called, dramatic developments have already taken place in Greenlandic politicals. High profile politicians have changed parties (and found a new one), and a newly released documentary has garnered strong reactions.
Below, Polar Journal AG has looked at three themes that, so far, have emerged as the most heavily debated in Greenland media and social media.
The American question:
Not surprisingly, the recent American interest in Greenland has been a major talking point ahead of the election.
The saga, which started with Trump Jr.’s visit to the country in early January, reached a new stage this week. An American lawmaker introduced a bill to Congress that would give Greenland the more colorful name Red, White, and Blueland. At the same time, US Senator Ted Cruz had organized a Senate hearing on the possibility of a US purchase of Greenland.
These two developments, one more serious than the other, did not go unnoticed in Greenland, both being covered by local media.
In his opening statements Ted Cruz’ was more forthcoming than some of his Republican colleagues, emphasizing the importance of agreements with both Denmark and the people of Greenland for the acquisition to be successful.
Still, many Greenlanders remain wary of becoming American. For instance, Orla Joelsen, a social media creator and recently also Greenlandic parliamentary candidate, reacted in a manner emblematic of most in the country:
“Hi Mr. Senator member, Ted Cruz. You cannot acquire Greenland. As you know, the majority of Greenlandic has said NO. NO is a NO. Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland,” Orla Joelsen wrote on X.
That, however, as the next topic on this list will show, does not mean that the people of Greenland are happy with the status quo.
The question of independence:
The Greenlandic parliament is a multi-party representative system. Currently, five parties are represented in the parliament and a sixth one, Qulleq, recently gathered the required signatures to be able to run.
And it is a political spectrum which agrees on one thing at least: all six parties thus, in one way or another, want more independence from Denmark. The differences here are in the details.
Inuit Ataqatigiit, the left-wing party of prime minister Mute B. Egede, wants to take ‘targeted’ steps towards independence. The prime minister and his party have, however, been hesitant to embrace the American advances, underscoring instead that ‘Greenland is for the Greenlanders’.
The three parties Atassut, Demokraatit, and newcomers Qulleq all want to ‘work towards’ independence in some way.
The most extreme independence position is held by Naleraq, a party previously featured by Polar Journal AG for their suggestion that Greenlandic members should leave the Danish parliament. Its leader, Pele Broberg, previously the minister for foreign affairs, has thus also been less dismissive of the USA, arguing that the American interest benefits the independence movement.
Lastly, there is the other party currently in government: Siumut, a social democratic party that has traditionally been the largest in Greenland. For Siumut, the question of independence has already had serious consequences ahead of the upcoming election.
On Friday February 7th, its lone member of the Danish parliament Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam announced that she would leave the party, citing disagreements with Siumut leader Erik Jensen on the question of independence. In 2023, Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam made international headlines for her refusal to speak Danish in the Danish parliament, choosing instead to speak her native Greenlandic.
Kuno Fencker, another Siumut member and member of the Greenlandic parliament, also made headlines recently as received criticism for visiting Donald Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence. He, too, left Siumut this week citing disagreements on independence.
Both Kuno Fencker and Aki-Matilda Høegh-Dam, who are fiancés, recently announced that they have joined the independence-eager Naleraq party.
The question of cryolite and ‘Greenland’s White Gold’:
Surprisingly perhaps, discussions of the two topics above have paled this week in comparison with a third one. Over the weekend, Denmark’s public broadcaster DR released a documentary named ‘Greenland’s White Gold’, sparking intense discussions in both Denmark and Greenland.
The documentary, which premiered early to a full cinema screening in Nuuk, tells the story of a historic Cryolite mine in operation in South Greenland from 1854 until 1987. In the documentary, experts estimate that the mining venture could have earned Denmark (in today’s money) as much as 400 billion DKK (53,626,600,000 euro) over the 133-year-period.
The existence of this mine is not in itself news to anyone familiar with Greenlandic history. And since its release several other experts have come forth, casting doubts over the astronomic size of the estimated profits.
Nevertheless, the timing of its release before the election has sparked heated debate in Greenland, some claiming that it redefines the way historic relationship between Denmark and Greenland should be interpreted. That Greenland has, in fact, been a financial benefit to Denmark, rather than a cost as it is often framed.
Prime Minister Mute B. Egede, himself, did not shy away from such interpretations, saying in the documentary: “I think the question should rather be turned around to ‘What would Denmark have been without Greenland?’”
And some days later, commenting on the controversy, he went even further, holding that Denmark’s annual payments of around 500 million euro to Greenland are merely paying back a debt.
“The workers were from Denmark. The equipment was from Denmark. The company was from Denmark. The money was not invested in the Greenlandic society. The people who lived right next to it were cut off from their fjord, where they could fish or hunt the animals that were part of their everyday life,” he told DR.
“In the end, it was Denmark that made the money. Right now, it is not a ‘block grant’. I see it as an installment plan after the cryolite mine,” Mute B. Egede said.
WIth a little less than a month to the election, these three topics appear to be the ones that will decide it. But the world is changing faster than ever, not least in Greenland, and other topics could show up before March 11th.
Whatever the case will turn out to be, one thing is unquestionable: Greenland’s upcoming election will be more important than ever for the future of the Arctic nation of 57,000 people.
Ole Ellekrog, Polar Journal AG
More on the topic:
