A Fight for ‘The Icy Africa’? Greenland Caught Between the Colonial Past, the U.S. Arctic Interests and the EU Strategic Autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article deals with the foreign policy priorities of Greenland as they are reflected in the perception and rhetoric of the contemporary Greenlandic elites. The special focus is on the current stage of the autonomous territory’s development, in particular the possibility of concluding a free association agreement, as envisaged in the draft constitution of Greenland, published in April 2023. With the 2019–2023 period as a basis, the article provides an insight into the key events of the following areas of Greenland’s foreign policy contacts: the Danish-Greenlandic relations, Inuit internationalism where the bonds with the Inuit of Canada are of most significance, Greenland's place in the US Arctic strategy and its great-power competition with China, and, finally, the increased interest of the EU and certain European countries in fostering relations with the Danish Arctic autonomy, which can contribute to developing the EU strategic autonomy. The study of the political discourse has shown that Greenlandic elites have been successfully using colonial ‘traumas’ and a growing circle of contacts with major external actors to exact pressure on Copenhagen and expand its political leverage despite the absence of substantial economic successes comparable to those achieved by the Faroe Islands, another Danish autonomy. Greenland’s desire to increase its own actorness on the international scene makes it difficult for Copenhagen to use the ‘Greenland card’ both in its relations with the USA to revitalize the special relations with the key ally and as a contribution to the EU strategic autonomy. The Danish leadership is thus entrapped by Greenland’s own economic and foreign policy potential, since the widespread use of Greenland in relations with the EU, NATO, the United States and other actors of world politics could potentially lead to the renewed mounting pressure on Copenhagen from Greenland and to the autonomy’s further alienation and diplomatic self-sufficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".