The proposal by former US President Donald Trump to potentially acquire Greenland and the subsequent military considerations raised, has ignited a surprising internal debate within Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, revealing a fissure in its response to international political maneuvering. While AfD co-leader Alice Weidel, in comments to “Welt am Sonntag”, urged caution and warned against further rhetorical escalation, another prominent party figure argued for a more proactive German stance in support of Denmark.
Weidel’s measured response downplayed the significance of Trump’s suggestion, referencing the longstanding US interest in Greenland – a dynamic she characterized as existing for over 150 years. She stated that the matter would initially be a bilateral concern between Denmark and the United States, suggesting Germany should remain largely detached from the situation. This position reflects a cautious approach, possibly intended to avoid entanglement in a complex geopolitical issue and to prevent accusations of interfering in international affairs.
However, René Aust, head of the European far-right faction “Europe of Sovereign Nations” and a key voice within the AfD, presented a contrasting viewpoint. Aust argued that the German government should unequivocally side with Denmark, emphasizing the principle of self-determination. He asserted that the future of Greenland should be decided solely by the Greenlandic population and the Danish government, implying that external influence, particularly from the United States, should be resisted.
The divergence in opinion underscores the internal ideological tensions within the AfD, which, despite a shared commitment to national sovereignty, hold differing perspectives on how Germany should engage with international powers and navigate complex geopolitical dynamics. While Weidel’s stance might be interpreted as a pragmatic attempt to avoid direct confrontation with the United States, Aust’s commentary highlights a more assertive, arguably nationalist, inclination to defend smaller nations against perceived American overreach, a strategy that could be employed to garner support amongst populist voters.
The internal disagreement also raises questions about the AfD’s overarching foreign policy strategy. Is it to remain a cautious observer of international events, or to position itself as a defender of smaller nations facing pressure from larger powers? The contrasting responses to Trump’s proposal offer a glimpse into a potentially more fragmented and potentially assertive foreign policy agenda for the AfD should the party ever hold governmental power.
