STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
A former U.S. ambassador to NATO has been listening along with us. Ambassador Kurt Volker, good morning. Welcome back.
KURT VOLKER: Good morning, Steve. Good to be with you.
INSKEEP: Good to be with you. We'll note that you served in the Bush administration and in the first Trump administration. We just heard that the United States is already defending Greenland, but is the president right that Greenland is strategically important up there in the Arctic?
VOLKER: Well, he is. I think he's identified a lot of the right security issues - that there is increasing maritime traffic up there, including Russia and China, and a lot of interest of those countries. We have actually withdrawn American forces and military presence over the decades. During the Cold War, we used to have about 6,000 people there and about 17 bases. Now we've got one and about 150 people. So past U.S. administrations - not Denmark and not Greenland, but past U.S. administrations pulled us out.
INSKEEP: I just want to ask about that, Ambassador. Are you telling me that with no change in ownership, with no new treaty, with nothing at all, the United States could reoccupy those bases and defend Greenland all they want to?
VOLKER: Absolutely. We have a 1951 treaty with Denmark, which is very broad language that allows the U.S. to do anything militarily we want to in order to defend Greenland and North America from Greenland.
INSKEEP: And I want to understand this also just to make sure that I'm not assuming too much. NATO says that an attack on one NATO nation is an attack on them all. Does that mean that if the Russians, the Chinese suddenly attacked Greenland, they would know - that would be a trip wire and it would create a war against the United States?
VOLKER: That's right. That's exactly what that means, and they do know that. And moreover, if the U.S. were to move against Greenland militarily, say, to take it over - and some people in the administration have said that military force is not off the table - that would be a violation of the NATO treaty and therefore a violation of U.S. law.
INSKEEP: OK. So what are the implications of the course that the administration announced over the weekend? The president began talking about tariffs against NATO allies, which would increase unless they give in to the demand for purchase of Greenland.
VOLKER: Yeah. It's kind of curious that the response to NATO allies not wanting Denmark to hand over Greenland is to make American consumers pay more for products from those countries. But that being said, I think that there is a way out of this. I - as I said, I don't think that we need to own Greenland. We can get everything we want militarily and security-wise with unfettered rights, without having to claim ownership. And I think that's where this will ultimately go.
INSKEEP: You are not worried about the future of NATO, then?
VOLKER: Well, very much so if we persist in this and particularly if we continue to imply that even military action against allies is possible. That really - as one of the people being interviewed in the previous segment said, that's more than just the specific issue of Greenland. That's the psychology of the alliance. That is, are we in this together, or are we not?
INSKEEP: Well, let's talk through an even bigger issue here, Ambassador, because there were a couple of big foreign policy developments in the last few days. And one is the administration's renewed and even intensified push to take over Greenland. But the other involved Canada - another occupation, by the way. Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, went to China, made a trade deal with China doing things that the United States would not have liked them to do - for example, opening Canadians' market to Chinese cars, something that the United States had gotten Canada to close previously. And as Mark Carney was doing this, he said he was responding to a new world order. What is the new world order?
VOLKER: Well, maybe a better way to say it is a new world without order. Because you have President Trump and others in the administration talking about a sphere-of-influence approach to policy. Power is what drives things in the world. So not only Canada, but lots of countries are now wondering, can they rely on the United States, and don't they maybe have to take care of their own interests in their own ways?
INSKEEP: What are the implications of that for the United States if countries around the world conclude that the United States is no longer a reliable ally or trade partner?
VOLKER: Well, I think one thing that we need to appreciate is that over the past 70 years, we have built up the largest expanse of free, democratic, prosperous and secure territory on Earth. And that's the transatlantic relationship, including NATO, European Union and so forth. If we abandon that, then we are losing all of those countries and all of that territory that is currently aligned with the United States.
INSKEEP: You just used the word if - if we abandon that. Do you feel that we have not already done so?
VOLKER: No, I don't think so. I think that you have a lot of tough rhetoric from President Trump, but he is also a negotiator. He always wants a deal. And in this case, it seems very clear that he can get everything he wants without having to break the transatlantic relationship.
INSKEEP: OK. Kurt Volker is a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, among other positions. Ambassador, it's a pleasure talking with you. Thank you so much.
VOLKER: Thank you, Steve. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
