Denmark’s former ambassador to NATO, veteran diplomat Michael Zilmer-Johns, had tough words for the Trump administration as Danish and American officials prepare to discuss the future of the small European nation’s semi-autonomous territory of Greenland.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said he’ll meet Danish officials next week, but he has not specified where or when. While Zlimer-Johns was critical of the Trump administration’s stated intention to make the world’s largest, strategically located island part of the U.S., he spoke pragmatically and hopefully about the future of the U.S.-Denmark relationship, and the future of the transatlantic NATO alliance that the U.S. has led for decades.
Below are the highlights of CBS News’ interview with the Danish diplomat.
CBS News: About all this talk from the White House about taking Greenland, how do you feel?
Michael Zilmer-Johns: Well, I was shocked, like I think almost every Dane and every Greenlander,, because the U.S. has, in our view, everything it needs for its security in Greenland. There’s a huge base there. It has the potential to build up. We have a defense agreement specifically about Greenland, with the US dating back to the year 1951.
I’m angry because I think that this is an affront to an ally that has stood up with the U.S. in Afghanistan, in Iraq, all over the world. Wherever they asked us to participate, we did. So I think it’s totally ungrateful.
CBS News: The Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, warned if Trump attacked Denmark to take Greenland, it would be the end of NATO. In her words, “everything stops, including NATO, and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.” As Denmark’s former top representative to NATO, to what extent do you fear the end of NATO?”
Zilmer-Johns: I’m worried, but I am still confident that at the end of the day, better counsels will prevail, that we will find some kind of agreement with the Trump administration on Greenland so that NATO can continue as it should. It will be a very different NATO, anyhow, because it’s clear that the Americans are withdrawing from Europe and Europe is going to step up. So it will be more European NATO in the future. But hopefully we can keep it together.”
CBS News: There has been criticism that a potential U.S. use of military force would basically be a NATO member against another NATO member in the nearly 80 years of the existence of this alliance. In your opinion, would the use of U.S. military force trigger Article 5, (my addition: the mutual defense clause that states an attack on one member is an attack on all 32 NATO nations)?
Zilmer-Johns: I mean it’s of course absurd to have such a situation where two NATO countries would be in a military conflict. If it was an outside power that did this to Denmark, then of course that would trigger Article 5. In a situation where it’s the strongest member of NATO that would attack small Denmark, I think that this would be something where NATO could not engage because it’s a conflict inside NATO and not between NATO and the foreign power.
I still find it very difficult to imagine that we would see actual fighting between Danish soldiers and Americans. But of course, the Danish soldiers in Greenland have a standing order to defend the territory against any aggression.
But should it happen, then at the end of the day, I think that the Danish government would tell the Danish troops to stand down because, of course, a military conflict between the world’s greatest military power and small Denmark, that is an inevitable result.
CBS News: Would an independent Greenland be able to defend itself against security issues, strategic adversaries? Here, China, Russia, as the White House, as President Trump has said?”
Zilmer-Johns: Greenland has a population of 60,000 people. It’s a huge land mass, the size of most of Western Europe, so of course it could not do that alone. It would need a stronger partner. It could be Denmark, it could be the US, but the Greenlanders themselves have said that if they – and when they should – become independent, they will continue to be a member of NATO.
CBS News: Right after World War II, the United States offered roughly $100 million in gold to buy Greenland from Denmark at that time. Right now, with inflation, that goes up to about $12-13 billion. What do you feel about that number as applied to Greenland in terms of its value?
Zilmer-Johns: I think the whole principle of selling Greenland is out of the question. That’s the thing that could happen in a different age where there were a lot of colonial powers and Greenland was a colony at that time and there were British colonies all over Africa. And we had sold the West Indies Islands to the Americans in 1916. So at that stage, it was not something that would be inconceivable. But today, with the status that Greenland has, it is simply not on the table. So whatever the amount would be, it would never be realistic, or something that anybody in Greenland could imagine.
CBS News: Is the White House being imperial in its ambitions?
Zilmer-Johns: I think that you could put it that way. When you look at the new security strategy, when you look what President Trump is saying about the Western Hemisphere and the need for control and the needs to expand the U.S., that sounds very much like imperialism in my eye.
Traditionally, America was at the forefront of decolonization and making the Europeans give up their colonies, forcing them to do so or putting pressure to do. I do not think that this approach will continue after President Trump. Even if his MAGA movement or the Republicans should continue to control the White House. I think it’s very much Trump’s personal approach, this anachronistic approach of colonialism, more imperialism.
CBS News: Is there anything else you would like to add in any talking points? A message for President Trump, a message for Americans?
Zilmer-Johns: I would like to say that we are ready to cooperate with America in all aspects of ensuring the legitimate security interests in and around Greenland. And we would invite you to do so. Thank you very much.
