Gavan Reilly: What happens in Greenland will be felt on this green land
There’s an old maxim in professional politics that, only when a politician is sick to the back teeth of a particular phrase, is the broader public beginning to actually hear it.
In that note, a question for you, dear reader: have you heard any Irish leaders refer to the importance to Ireland of the rules-based international order?
It’s a lofty phrase but, in fairness, a meaningful one. The very principle of democracy is that those elected to rule over us, set transparent rules by which they themselves must also live. The rule of law and a rules-based order is inherent to democracy: if those in charge simply invent their own rules, and live by their own whims, It’s tyranny rather than democracy.
Putting it plainly, the opposite of the ‘rules-based international order’ is ‘might is right’. The likes of Germany and France might get their way at the EU most of the time, but there are times when they simply get outnumbered by others. France voted against the Mercosur trade deal last week, for example.
The point is that these international rules-based structures give a leg-up to countries which would otherwise never get it. The rules-based order is the reason why, at the United Nations, the Marshall Islands (population 42,000) has the same voting power as China (population 1.4 billion).
All of this is an illustration of how much is at stake as Donald Trump starts eyeing up Greenland, the sovereign territory of Denmark, a member of NATO and the EU.
Your columnist is wary of overanalysing Donald Trump’s general remarks – he has a documented habit of freestyling his commentary, and because he’s never willing to admit that certain proposals haven’t been considered, every throwaway remark is considered a formal communique from the world’s highest office.
Nonetheless, the frequency with which the U.S. President has spoken about Greenland – and its occupation or annexation, one way or another – is the biggest threat to the rules-based order since the 1940s.
Put it this simply: if Trump does decide to invade Greenland and claim it as its own, NATO – a rules-based organisation – basically ceases to exist. So too does Pax Americana, the entire post-WW2 system whereby the U.S.’s military position ensures the security of the western hemisphere.
If NATO didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent it… and that’s where Ireland would have a big problem. Of the 27 EU members, 23 are already in NATO anyway. The likelihood is that the European Union would immediately face an existential question about subsuming NATO’s European military arms.
That’s an uncomfortable question for Ireland. While unpicking the Triple Lock, the government still insists that Ireland will not be joining any military alliance. How does Ireland square the idea of using the EU for successful self-projection, with the majority of members wanting more defence interdependence? And what becomes of us, if all of this comes to a head in 2026 – when Cyprus and Ireland, two neutral states, hold the EU’s rotating presidency?
How Ireland should respond to that, is a question for another column. But for now, simply be aware that when it comes to an icy Arctic rock (allegedly) surrounded by Russian and Chinese naval vessels, Ireland has skin in the game.