338
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Greenland‘s State-Building Process
Greenland and with much fewer issues to deal with, had at the same period about 36 persons, including
the minister, at the main office of its Department of External Relations.
Looking at the case of Iceland, formerly part of the Danish Kingdom, is more than interesting with
regards to some dimensions of Greenland‘s future and its challenges. Iceland manages to run a foreign
service which counts 25 diplomatic representations (including Consulates General), with most of the
time two or three diplomats in each of them to deal with all issues, from consular affairs to politics,
economics and culture, while being in a key country with a number of side-accredited countries and
sometimes international organisations to follow. With some acknowledging that in the case of Iceland it
can appear under-staffed to properly deal with foreign affairs, Greenland‘s capabilities would then seem
particularly challenging, if not symbolic, at a time where the territory is experiencing a new reality.
Greenland has talents, but too few to handle the growing international interest it is experiencing.
Education and a greater internationalization of Greenlanders‘ minds, notably through the media, are
therefore absolute key challenges that Greenland needs to face with regards to its state-building process.
In a few years‘ time, Greenland, an island of 2,166,086 km² inhabited by less than 57,000 persons, has
experienced rapid changes when it comes to its external relations. It has been and still is receiving an
unprecedented amount of international interest due to the territory‘s strategic assets, notably in terms of
natural resources; and due to the growing importance of the Arctic region. When global powers such as
China meet Greenland, things get further intensified.
In the context of a global raw material sector, and because Greenland‘s development takes place in a
rapidly changing Arctic region, it is also critical for Greenland to have more global-oriented politicians,
especially when it comes to the lobbying related to foreign investments, which are at the core of
Greenland‘s development. It takes only 28 persons, including ministers, mayors and the majority of the
Parliament, to politically run the territory.
A single project such as the Kvanefjeld one in South Greenland (one of the largest deposit of rare earth
elements and uranium in the world) could make Greenland‘s GDP rise by more than 20% (Søren Duran
Duus, 2013).
In the case of an iron ore mining project outside Nuuk (Isua project), the potential offered
could simply double
(Krarup, 2013) Greenland‘s GDP. It gives one an idea of the weight such projects
could have on Greenland, its economy and its few decision-makers.
As the financing for major projects in Greenland will probably come from Asia, and given Greenland‘s
characteristics, the self-ruled territory needs to strengthen its political ties with its direct neighborhood
and historical partners: the Nordic region, an area to which it belongs, the European Union and the
United States.
Following the 2013 parliamentary elections in Greenland, a major challenge appeared for Greenland‘s
development: ensuring stability during changes of government. Stability is needed in terms of regulatory
framework, which is critical for attracting the foreign investments that Greenland needs; but also with
regards to Greenland‘s dialogue with Denmark and the Arctic Council. In other words, domestic politics
is one thing, but credibility is needed for Greenland‘s image on the international stage. Disregarding
realities, the main one being that Denmark is in charge of the Kingdom‘s foreign and security policy,
may be counter-productive for Greenland in its relationship with Denmark.
2014 will continue to be interesting to follow when it comes to the relationship between Greenland (in
charge of managing its natural resources) and Denmark (in charge of the Kingdom‘s foreign and security