This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
Following the U.S. attack on Venezuela and the abduction of the president, the Trump administration is publicly saying it wants to take over Greenland, which has been controlled by Denmark for over 300 years. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, quote, “The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander in chief’s disposal,” she said. At a congressional briefing Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio floated the idea of the U.S. buying Greenland. White House adviser Stephen Miller talked about Greenland during an appearance on CNN.
STEPHEN MILLER: The United States should have Greenland as part of the United States. There is no need to even think or talk about this in the context that you’re asking of a military operation. Nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.
AMY GOODMAN: In that CNN interview, Stephen Miller defended the U.S. attack on Venezuela.
STEPHEN MILLER: We live in a world in which you can — you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned, if the U.S. attacks Greenland, it will spell the end of NATO.
PRIME MINISTER METTE FREDERIKSEN: [translated] Firstly, I believe that the American president should be taken seriously when he says that he wants Greenland. But I also want to make it clear that if the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops — that is, including our NATO, and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by two guests. Pavel Devyatkin is a nonresident fellow at the Quincy Institute, senior associate at The Arctic Institute. His new piece for Responsible Statecraft is headlined “Is Greenland next? Denmark says, not so fast.” He’s joining us from Moscow, Russia. And joining us from just south of the Arctic Circle in the Canadian city of Iqaluit is Aaju Peter. She’s a Greenlandic Inuit activist and attorney, recently featured in the documentary Twice Colonized.
We welcome you back to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with Pavel Devyatkin. Pavel, can you talk about what is at stake right now and the response by Denmark and also, of course, most importantly, the people of Greenland?
PAVEL DEVYATKIN: Thank you for having me, Amy.
Trump says we need Greenland for national security, but his threats actually harm our security and threaten to destroy international law and institutions. In trying to acquire Greenland, the U.S. is acting like a rogue state with a reckless foreign policy. There is absolutely no military threat to the U.S. from Greenland and no threat of Greenland forming military alliances with Russia or China. So this is pure imperialism.
Trump is claiming that Russian and Chinese ships are all along the coast of Greenland, but that Denmark can’t protect it. But this is false. He’s mixing up different parts of the Arctic. Russia and China do send ships into the Arctic, but those ships are nowhere near Greenland. They’re way out in the Barents and Bering Seas, thousands of miles away. And the U.S. already controls Greenland in terms of military security, thanks to a 1951 agreement with Denmark that gives the U.S. control of a military base in the far north of the island. When Trump talks about Greenland, he keeps lumping the whole island together with the Pituffik military base, insisting that the only way to keep the base safe is to own the land beneath it.
What we’re witnessing is a dangerous “might makes right” worldview. You played that clip of Stephen Miller saying nobody’s going to fight the U.S. militarily over the future of Greenland. They’re really betting on raw military power to seize territory from a sovereign nation. And that statement came after Stephen Miller’s wife posted a picture of the American flag covering Greenland on Twitter. She captioned the photo with the word “soon.” The White House is currently discussing how to acquire Greenland, and not exempting military force.
Trump’s push to seize Greenland is also related to the island’s vast critical mineral deposits. Billionaires, like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk, are also behind the push to extract these minerals for tech and to set up a so-called libertarian freedom city on the island.
I think it’s also important to not ignore the timing. The attack on Venezuela and the escalating threats against Greenland conveniently come as a time — come at the time that new Epstein files reveal Trump was on Epstein’s jet many more times than previously reported. Officials are saying that more than 2 million Epstein files are still unreleased. Meanwhile, Americans are struggling with inflation, housing affordability and crumbling infrastructure. Most Americans are opposed to the new war in Venezuela and seizing Greenland. Most Americans think Trump hasn’t focused enough on lowering the cost of goods and services, but instead he’s manufacturing these foreign crises.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: So, Pavel Devyatkin, I wanted to ask you about this issue of NATO. Here you have the European leaders trying to deal with the fact that the United States did a 180-degree turn on the war in Ukraine and left them holding the bag of what to try to — how to deal with the situation in Ukraine. Will Trump’s move to try to grab Greenland basically rupture for sure the relationship within NATO between the United States and the European Union?
PAVEL DEVYATKIN: Yeah, there are real risks to the Euro-Atlantic community. European leaders are facing an existential crisis, and many are actually failing the test. We’ve seen the Danish prime minister warn that if the U.S. attacks another NATO country, everything stops, including NATO, and so that the security that has been provided since the end of World War II is also in question. Some European commentators are showing backbone. I saw the ex-NATO General Michel Yakovleff said how if Trump moves on Greenland, Europe must be ready even to fight the U.S. and to expel America from key bases in Europe. We saw how seven European leaders issued a joint statement that Greenland belongs to its people.
But other leaders are shamefully weak. U.K. ministers are basically saying nothing, according to their own foreign — by their own former defense secretary. Some are trying to appease Trump rather than defend international law. The Prime Minister Keir Starmer refused to condemn the U.S. military actions in Venezuela, but he stated he stands with Denmark regarding Greenland.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Could you also talk briefly about how climate change is changing the geostrategic importance of Greenland in terms of shipping routes around the world?
PAVEL DEVYATKIN: Absolutely. Greenland is the canary in the coal mine. The Arctic as a whole is ground zero for the climate catastrophe. And Trump wants to militarize the Arctic and Greenland instead of leading climate cooperation. The Greenland ice sheet is melting several times faster than in the ’90s. We’re seeing dangerous feedback loops. As the ice melts, it’s revealing darker rock, an ocean that absorbs more heat and accelerates global warming. If Greenland’s ice sheet fully melts, sea levels could rise 24 feet. That would devastate New York City, wipe out Florida, displace millions. And the fresh melt water is already slowing Atlantic Ocean currents that regulate global climate. If these currents collapse, Europe could face extreme cold, while the tropics overheat.
Indigenous Greenlanders are watching how their traditional way of life vanish as the ice disappears — traditional hunting, food security, forced displacement. These are all in crisis in Greenland and across the Arctic as a whole. Instead of partnering with Indigenous peoples on climate science and adaptation, Trump wants to basically colonize their homeland for mineral extraction. The melting of the Arctic is also opening up Arctic shipping lanes, as you noted. Rather than working through international cooperation, Trump wants to use military control over these emerging trade corridors to compete with Russia’s northern sea route.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to bring in Aaju Peter, Greenlandic Inuit activist and attorney, featured in the PBS documentary Twice Colonized. The documentary is a production of various media. I wanted to ask you about the response in Greenland right now to President Trump threatening to militarily seize or buy Greenland.
AAJU PETER: Thank you for having me, Amy.
Yes, Greenland is not for sale. That’s what Greenland is saying. And Greenland wants its independence. Greenland leaders, elected leaders, and the population would like to have a conversation with Donald Trump on what it is that he wants. We have been — Greenland has worked with the United States since the Second World War, and they’re open to communication on what it is that Donald Trump wants from Greenland.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to go to a trailer for the documentary about you, Twice Colonized.
AAJU PETER: [translated] I want you to hear this: We will always be here. We are alive.
[in English] I live in the Canadian Arctic. But I went to school in Denmark when I was a child, because I was colonized by them. That’s my colonizer right there!
You want to see my lawyer outfit? No other people in court has that. Only I have the sealskin, because I fight for First Peoples’ rights.
We should be included in the discussions as nation-states are.
The memory, it’s not bringing joy to me.
You forgot our language, our culture, our connection. There was so much destruction.
[translated] I’m going to cry now.
INTERVIEWER 1: [translated] Because you’re speaking Danish?
AAJU PETER: Yeah.
I haven’t been able to leave the trauma and learned behavior behind. I find myself in situations that are not good for me. But that’s what I know.
Our children are going hungry. Our hunters are so humiliated.
PROTESTERS: What’s Canada guilty of? Genocide! What’s Canada guilty of? Genocide!
AAJU PETER: You’re born to this world to make a difference.
Look at this. The empire is here.
What would you like us to do? Do you want us to be sustainable and traditional, or do you want us to be part of the modern economy? Guess what? It is our choice.
AAJU PETER: [translated] Oh hell!
INTERVIEWER 2: You become angry?
AAJU PETER: No, I’m just relearning my Danish!
AMY GOODMAN: Aaju Peter is the feature in Twice Colonized. And I’m wondering — explain what “twice colonized” means. As a Greenlandic Inuit, you were sent to Denmark to go to school. It sounds very much like the reservation schools in the United States and in Canada, where actually so many Native people died. But as a Inuit, if you can inject an Inuit voice into this conversation, whether controlled by Denmark or militarily invaded by the United States?
AAJU PETER: Yes, that’s true. I was sent off [inaudible] 300 years. And then, [inaudible] when I went back to Greenland, I moved to the Canadian Arctic. And the Indigenous peoples of Canada were colonized by the — by Canada, of course. And now we would like our own sovereignty. We have — you can talk to us. We are demanding that make decisions and everything else that’s happening should be made with us — us — that you can’t just take over a people or Indigenous people just because you think you’re so superior. You actually have to have a conversation with the Indigenous peoples of Greenland and the Indigenous peoples of Canada.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And how has the relationship between Greenland and Denmark evolved over the years? What in particular still riles you about that relationship or feels that it’s insufficient?
AAJU PETER: I haven’t lived in Greenland since 1981. I can only speak on what I hear through the television and the radio. They wanted to become — Greenlanders wanted to become independent, an independent country. But then, the Trump administration and Trump is trying to take over Greenland, so that talk of independence has stalled for a bit now. And Greenland wants to work with NATO and the countries of NATO so that they can oppose the threats from Donald Trump. You can’t — you can’t turn around and start threatening other NATO nations. And that’s not acceptable.
AMY GOODMAN: Aaju Peter, I want to thank you for joining us from Iqaluit, Canada, interestingly, which the Trump administration has also threatened to make the 51st state. I also want to thank Pavel Devyatkin of the Quincy Institute and The Arctic Institute. Interesting you’re talking to us from Moscow, Russia. A final comment on how Russians are responding to what the U.S. did in Venezuela, as the U.S. is involved in supposedly trying to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the irony of this, invading Venezuela and abducting the president?
PAVEL DEVYATKIN: Thanks, Amy. That’s very important. Russia’s U.N. representative has condemned the attack on Venezuela, calling it a violation of international law, an act of state terrorism. Some Russian bloggers and veterans have also condemned the raid as a violation of sovereignty, calling it naked imperialism that strips away any American pretense of supporting international law. But many are also impressed. They’re saying it should be studied closely, some giving credit to U.S. operational planning and execution, saying, “We should be taking notes, not just complaining.”
The developments are important for Russia. Moscow has invested heavily in keeping Maduro in power, deploying missile defense systems to Venezuela, sending military advisers and using Venezuelan ports for Russian naval vessels. In a matter of hours, that investment has evaporated.
These actions against Venezuela are catastrophic for any potential U.S.-Russia negotiations over Ukraine. How can Russia negotiate with an America that just demonstrated it will use military force to seize territory and overthrow governments it doesn’t like? The Americans, according to some Russian commentators, have just shown that agreements, sovereignty, international law, none of it matters when they decide they want something. So, why should Russia believe any security guarantees the U.S. offers regarding Ukraine?
AMY GOODMAN: Are the Russian generals saying —
PAVEL DEVYATKIN: In general —
AMY GOODMAN: — that they should have just abducted Zelensky and been done with it?
PAVEL DEVYATKIN: That’s right. Some are discussing that, and they’re pointing to what lessons can be taken from Venezuela for Ukraine.
You know, this causes really large risks for other security issues, including arms control. The New START Treaty, the last bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Russia limiting nuclear arms, is about to expire in less than a month, potentially unleashing a new nuclear arms race that would be catastrophic and costly. With this flagrant situation in Venezuela, the negotiations are definitely going to be very difficult between the U.S. and Russia.
AMY GOODMAN: Pavel Devyatkin, I want to thank you for being with us, with the Quincy Institute and The Arctic Institute.
Next up, one year ago today, the fires in California. We’ll be joined by MS NOW’s Jacob Soboroff. His new book, Firestorm. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: That song by our previous guest, the Greenlandic Inuit, Aaju Peter.
