|Greenland Conflict: NATO Risks and Near Misses
- Collective defense is NATO's governing principle, where Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against...
- This has been a binding pledge since 1949, when the alliance came together and one that has forged solidarity between North America and Europe.
- Because Article 5 requires unanimous agreement from all members to be invoked, a conflict between two members would lead to an impasse, as the alliance cannot vote to...
The Trump administration has once again threatened to take control of Greenland either by acquiring it or through the use of military force to “deter our adversaries in the Arctic region.”
Greenland,which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark,already hosts the Pituffik Space Base,which the US operates in coordination with Danish authorities. Both the US and Denmark are founding members of NATO, the most powerful military alliance.
European and Canadian leaders have jumped to support Denmark and Greenland, saying they are working on a plan in the event the United States follows through with its threats.
Analysts have said that any attempt by the US to seize Greenland would be an unprecedented move in NATO’s history and raise serious questions about the survival of the alliance and the limits of Article 5,which was designed to defend against an external aggressor.
What happens if one NATO member attacks another?
Table of Contents
Collective defense is NATO’s governing principle, where Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all.
This has been a binding pledge since 1949, when the alliance came together and one that has forged solidarity between North America and Europe.
Because Article 5 requires unanimous agreement from all members to be invoked, a conflict between two members would lead to an impasse, as the alliance cannot vote to go to war against itself.
The only time Article 5 has been invoked was following the September 11, 2001, attacks in the US.
In this timeline, al Jazeera examines the closest instances when NATO members have faced potential conflict with each other.
Internal divisions that have tested NATO
Throughout its history, NATO has faced numerous internal divisions, testing the alliance’s unity and effectiveness.Thes disputes have ranged from disagreements over military strategy and burden-sharing to differing national interests and political ideologies.
Early tensions and disagreements
1953 – Greek and Turkish dispute over Cyprus
In 1953, tensions flared between Greece and Turkey over the island of Cyprus, which was then a British colony with a majority Greek population. Greece advocated for *enosis* – unification with Greece – while Turkey supported the Turkish Cypriot minority who feared discrimination.
The dispute escalated into intercommunal violence in 1955,and in 1974,Turkey intervened militarily following a Greek-backed coup attempt. This intervention led to the de facto partition of Cyprus, a situation that remains unresolved today. NATO struggled to mediate the conflict, highlighting the challenges of balancing the interests of its member states.
1995 – Canada and Spain fishing dispute
In 1995, Canada and Spain came close to a naval conflict during the “Turbot War”.Canada had imposed restrictions to protect fish stocks,including a species of fish named turbot,leading to accusations that EU boats were overfishing just outside Canada’s exclusive economic zone.
Tensions escalated when Canadian Coast Guard vessels fired warning shots over a Spanish trawler and arrested its crew. Europe threatened sanctions,but the UK vetoed them,siding with Canada alongside Ireland. In response, Spain deployed naval patrols, and Canada authorised its navy to fire on trespassing vessels, bringing NATO members dangerously close to conflict.
The crisis ended following EU mediation, resulting in canada withdrawing its enforcement actions and the establishment of a joint regulatory framework.
Disputes over war engagements
NATO has also faced internal divisions over when and how to engage militarily,with some members often wanting to avoid direct military action.
1956 – France, UK and US over the Suez Crisis
During the 1956 Suez Crisis, France and the UK formed a secret alliance with Israel to invade Egypt following Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s nationalisation of the Suez canal.
This operation caused a severe crisis within NATO, as the united States, fearing Soviet intervention and the alienation of the Arab world, strongly opposed
Recent tensions within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), stemming from disagreements over Afghanistan and responses to the Russia-Ukraine war, are being further tested by developments concerning Greenland. While the alliance has historically maintained cohesion despite internal disputes, the current situation presents a significant challenge to its unity, notably as some member states have placed limitations on military deployments.
NATO’s Recent Challenges
NATO has experienced internal friction in recent years, primarily concerning strategic priorities and burden-sharing. The withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan in 2021 exposed divisions among member states regarding the conditions and timing of the exit, and the subsequent Taliban takeover raised questions about the alliance’s effectiveness. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg acknowledged failures in the Afghanistan withdrawal in November 2023.
Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, disagreements emerged regarding the level and type of military assistance to Ukraine, as well as the deployment of NATO forces to Eastern Europe. Some nations expressed reluctance to escalate the conflict or divert resources from other priorities. The United States has provided significant security assistance to Ukraine, totaling over $50 billion as of December 2023, while other members have contributed varying amounts.
Greenland and Strategic Importance
Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, has gained increased strategic importance due to climate change and the opening of new Arctic shipping routes.The arctic region is experiencing warming at a rate nearly four times faster then the global average, according to the Brookings Institution. This has led to increased interest from various nations, including the United States, Russia, and China, in the region’s natural resources and geopolitical position.
The United States has expressed concerns about potential Chinese influence in Greenland, particularly regarding infrastructure projects and access to rare earth minerals. In 2023, the U.S. State Department reaffirmed its commitment to working with Greenland and Denmark to address these concerns. Denmark maintains responsibility for Greenland’s foreign and defense affairs, but Greenland’s government has increasing autonomy in internal matters.
The Current Test for NATO
The current situation in Greenland, involving discussions about increased military presence and infrastructure development, is testing NATO’s unity. Some member states are hesitant to provoke Russia or China by expanding military activities in the Arctic, while others believe a stronger NATO presence is necessary to safeguard strategic interests and deter potential adversaries.
Specifically,reports indicate that Denmark is seeking assurances from NATO allies regarding support for Greenland’s security,but some members are reluctant to commit resources or personnel. This hesitation stems from existing budgetary constraints and differing threat assessments. As of January 9, 2024, there have been no formal requests for additional NATO deployments to Greenland, but diplomatic discussions are ongoing. Politico reported on January 8, 2024, that Denmark is seeking reassurances from NATO allies regarding greenland’s security.