Greenland and the Faroe Islands: Denmark’s autonomous territories from postcolonial perspectives

Postcolonial concepts

In this article, we pay particular attention to the ‘post-colonial’ period, as defined in the preceding section. In the case of Greenland, we can identify its origin as in the year 1953, when it was transformed from a colony into a Danish county (amt). Faroese history does not provide a postcolonial or colonial turning point, but the year 1948, when the Faroe Islands were granted autonomy, is most significant. The anticolonial manifestations of the two self-governing territories began to write their history at the time when the bond with their colonizer was established. Thus, postcolonialism is directly defined in relation to the previous colonial period (Ashcroft et al. Citation2007, 168; Gregory Citation2009, 561).

After World War II, anticolonial movements were most often formulated on the basis of the idea of a European nation state, imparting the idea of nationalism that, in its anti-colonial form, was directed against the colonizer (Aschroft et al. Citation2007, 12). In this article, we examine the nationalist manifestations in the two cases from their origin in the form of national self-awareness, through increasing political emancipation (e.g. the formation of political parties, increasing autonomy, own foreign policy) and economic emancipation (e.g. efforts to diversify the economy), to the attempts to achieve independence for Greenland and the Faroe Islands. The process of national self-awareness often suggests a positive change in thinking and a cultural revolution at the beginning of the process of decolonization (Rukundwa & Aarde Citation2007, 1185–1186). While political and economic decolonization is guaranteed by gaining independence, cultural decolonization, which many refer to as ‘decolonization of the mind’, seems to be a much more complex problem for formerly colonized countries (Sharp Citation2009, 4). For both Greenland and the Faroe Islands we show how Danish culture served as an important means of integration into Danish society.

However, historically the most frequently applied minority policy in the Arctic context was not the integration but the assimilation of national minorities and natives (Broderstad & Dahl Citation2004, 85–86). Elsewhere, examples of such practices can be found in the USA’s approach to the natives of Alaska and the Canadian approach to Inuit and Metis living in Canadian territories (Broderstad & Dahl Citation2004, 87–88). There is no difference between the approach of Scandinavian countries with regard to the Sami and the approach of the Soviet Union and later Russia, with regard to the natives of the North and Far East, where assimilation sometimes took on more violent forms compared with in the rest of the Arctic (Broderstad & Dahl Citation2004). Assimilation was also part of the Danish colonial policy towards Greenland (Broderstad & Dahl Citation2004, 88). The colonized minorities of the Arctic are now largely located in the territory of the original colonizer, with the exception of the native inhabitants of Alaska, which was sold by Russia to the USA in 1867. Therefore, colonialism in the Arctic region is often referred to as internal colonialism or neocolonialism (R. Petersen Citation1995, 118).

Similarly, an assimilation policy was practised in the Faroe Islands. The current relationship of the Faroe Islands with Denmark is characterized by Faroese republican politician Hoydal as neocolonial (Hoydal Citation2006, 6). For comparison, in the Nordic context, the autonomous Åland Islands seem to represent the most appropriate example of how minority rights should be approached. However, their relationship with Finland was based on a different legal and historical basis, and when the Åland Islands were integrated with Finland in 1921, the Ålanders were able to retain their original Swedish language (Karlsson Citation2009, 144–145). As we show in the sections ‘Greenland from the perspective of postcolonialism’ and ‘The Faroe Islands from the perspective of postcolonialism’, the assertion of Faroese and Greenlandic as the national languages has required a much greater effort by its speakers than by Ålanders.

The concept of the Danish social model, presented to Greenlanders and the Faroese as the only one worth following, can be explained in terms ‘coloniality’, which Quijano regards as ‘the most general form of domination in the world today, once colonialism and an explicit political order was destroyed’ (Quijano Citation2007, 170). Thus, ‘coloniality’ refers to the European cultural complex of modernity, presented to the rest of the world as the universal and only recognized paradigm of knowledge (Quijano Citation2007, 171–172). The European version of history was intended to serve other cultures as a mirror of their own future (Quijano Citation2007, 176) and is often dubbed as Eurocentrism (Aschroft et al. Citation2007, 84–85).

With the advent of postmodernism in the social sciences, the Eurocentrism approach has been criticized (Quijano Citation2007, 176). However, the concentration of world resources in the hands of a small European minority or its ruling class did not end with colonialism. The range of beneficiaries was only expanded to include North American elites and, for example, Japan (Quijano Citation2007, 170). Thus, coloniality is still a continuation of colonialism and we look for its manifestations in both cases presented in this article. We discuss historical continuity with the previous period with regard to ‘neo-colonialism’ as a concept.

Furthermore, one criticism of neocolonialism is based on the international division of labour, which is considered the main cause of the uneven development of the world. Thus, neocolonialism has become a frequent topic of development studies (Young Citation2016, 54; McEwan Citation2019, 2). As a concept, neocolonialism expresses the ongoing hegemony of the colonizer over the economic resources of the formerly colonized country, which was not interrupted even by the declaration of political independence (Young Citation2016, 45). Thus, the postcolonial state finds itself in a relationship of permanent dependency on the previous power (and sometimes even the same group of people) and is subject to the needs of international trade. Since the colonization policy has been successfully implemented in all areas of local people’s lives, the power of the former colonizer no longer needs to be enforced. However, the often hard-won state sovereignty is essentially fictitious (Young Citation2016, 45–46).

Lastly, in this article we pay attention to the modern challenges that Greenlanders and the Faroese face on their way to finding a secure position in the globalized world, alongside their desire to break free from their colonial heritage. Aschroft et al. (Citation2007) discuss the importance of reflecting on the local specificities of each colonized area. If follows that each postcolonial situation must have such specificities in order to be analysed in relation to the general principles of postcolonialism (Aschroft et al. Citation2007, 171). The relationship of Greenland and the Faroe Islands to Denmark is certainly not free of specificities. Moreover, the terminology mentioned in this subsection (i.e. ‘Postcolonial concepts’) serves to facilitate an evaluation of both Greenland and the Faroe Islands.

Greenlandic colonial history

Since the time of the Viking expeditions, Greenland, as well as Iceland and the Faroe Islands, have been Norwegian foreign territories (Bertelsen Citation2014, 11). In 1380, they came under the administration of the Danish-Norwegian Kingdom. In 1814, shortly before end of the Napoleonic Wars, it was decided that Norway would be transferred to Swedish administration. However, all three North Atlantic dependencies have remained Danish (Hovgaard & Ackrén Citation2017, 69). The time of the Norwegian Vikings reminds us that Greenland has been subjected to colonization twice (L. Jensen Citation2016a). In 1721, the Lutheran missionary Hans Egede set out to find Norwegians worthy of conversion. As was later found, traces of Norwegian settlers disappeared at the turn of the 14th and 15th centuries. Consequently, in Greenland, Egede met ‘only’ the indigenous Inuit and colonized Greenland for the Danish-Norwegian Kingdom.

In the early phase of colonization, which was characterized by religious missions, the Moravian Brothers (known and referred to by the name Herrnhuters, which is Germanic in origin), who came from the region of North Moravia in Czechia, played an important role (L. Jensen Citation2016a, 56; Klempíř & Klempířova Citation2016, 52–77). Under the authority of the King of Denmark, they worked in Greenland until 1900, when they left their work to the Danish Lutheran Church. The Danish colonial administration was gradually extended to trading, whaling and mining (cryolite mining in Ivigtut had started in the 1850s (Elbo Citation1948)). The administration was enabled by the establishment of the Royal Greenland Trade Department in 1774, which held a trade monopoly over the whole island until 1950 (Sørensen Citation2006, 126). However, up until World War II, Greenland remained isolated. Even the Danes outside state institutions, such as journalists, had to apply for permission to visit the island (Strandsbjerg Citation2014).

Changes occurred after the outbreak of World War II. When Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany it was unable to take responsibility for the protection of Greenland and therefore that role was taken over by the USA. In 1941, the Americans concluded a bilateral defence agreement with Denmark (negotiated by the Danish consul in Washington, Henrik Kauffmann) on the basis of which, America gradually built several military facilities in Greenland (Dodds & Nuttall Citation2016, 107; Heinrich Citation2018, 31). In 1946, US leaders decided that the best step for enhancing Greenland’s security would be to buy the whole island; the Danish government disagreed with the proposal. The US Secretary of State for the Lincoln Administration, William H. Seward, recommended that Washington should have considered buying Greenland when buying Alaska (1867). Its position had to be defended by Danes also in 1917 when selling the present-day United States Virgin Islands (Dodds & Nuttall Citation2018, 143–144), and after the World War II the question of Greenland was used by the USA to put pressure on Denmark to join NATO. In 1951, the ten-year American-Danish defence agreement was restored (N. Petersen Citation2013, 298–299).

Change of political status and modernization

Denmark was aware that Greenland’s political status was not sustainable in its colonial form. Furthermore, Danes were under pressure from the United Nations (UN), as they had to send annual reports on the progress towards achieving autonomy for Greenland and the Faroe Islands (J.A. Jensen Citation2003, 172; L. Jensen Citation2016a). However, ‘After the World War II experience, Greenland could not remain a colony of Denmark, and Denmark did not want to be branded as a colonial power in the United Nations and elsewhere’ (Bertelsen Citation2014, 17). Denmark decided to resolve the situation by integrating the two remaining territories into the kingdom. The new order was anchored in the Danish constitution of 1953, which considers Greenland a county of the Kingdom of Denmark (Bertelsen Citation2014, 17). The official end of the colonial thrall marked the start of the modernization phase of Greenland.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the plans for Greenland’s socio-economic development were called G50 and G60. The measures led to a sharp increase in the standard of living of the population by improving health care, developing education, and establishing the electrification of the country (Sørensen Citation2006, 111–123). Jürgen Jensen states that ‘the Greenlandic population was in effect transported from the Middle Ages to the twentieth century in less than twenty-five years’ (J.A. Jensen Citation2003, 172). However, the process also led to a number of problems such as criminality and alcoholism (J.A. Jensen Citation2003, 172), which have played a part in the ranking of Greenland among the countries with the highest suicide rate in the world (Hersher Citation2016).

By contrast, the period of ‘post-colonialism’ was not in the spirit of the retreat of the previous colonial power from the Greenlandic scene. According to R. Petersen (Citation1995), there were no changes, as Greenland continued to be administered by the same administration and its modernization was managed from Copenhagen. Denmark’s impact on all spheres of life was greater than ever before and the period of the ‘Danification’ of Greenland began (R. Petersen Citation1995). Problems persisted in terms of social equality. Employees were paid according to a ‘birth criterion’, whereby a person born in Denmark received a higher salary than a native Greenlander (R. Petersen Citation1995; Strandsbjerg Citation2014). As a result of these discriminatory practices, Danish government faced increasing criticism in the 1960s (Heinrich Citation2018, 36). The political awakening of Greenland was particularly affected by the younger sections of the population, who began to demand the promised equality and wanted to prevent modernization efforts that endangered Inuit culture (Heinrich Citation2018, 36). Moreover, in 1973, Greenland followed Denmark when it became a member of the European Community (EC) (Rebhan Citation2016), despite having reservations, mainly due to the fisheries legislation.

In the 1970s, the struggle for Greenland’s independence was in full swing, the strongest advocate of which was the strongest political party, Siumut (in Greenlandic Forward, meaning ‘Forward for Independence’) (Bertelsen Citation2014, 18). In a referendum held in 1979, over 70% of the population voted in favour of expanding the island’s self-government and in May of that year autonomy was granted to Greenland (Sørensen Citation2006, 151). The struggle against the former colonizer was then replaced by a fight against European integration. In 1985, the withdrawal from the EC marked the first step in Greenland’s foreign policy (Bertelsen Citation2014, 18; Heinrich Citation2018). Prior to then, Greenland was the only former colony in the EC (R. Petersen Citation1995).

Today, Greenland has an overseas country and territory relationship with the EU. The most recent significant change in Greenland’s relationship with Denmark occurred in 2009, when the then-existing autonomy Act was replaced by the Act on Greenland Self-Government, known as the Self-Government Act (SGA) ([Government of Greenland] Citation2009). Among other things, the law established Greenlandic as the official language of Greenland (Self-Government Act § 20) ([Government of Greenland] Citation2009). An official version of Greenlandic grammar was first compiled in 1851 by missionary Samuel Kleinschmidt and a major revision was made in 1973 (Goldbach & Winther-Jensen Citation1988), which meant than Greenlandic could become an important tool for the emancipation of Greenlandic society. According to the Self-Government Act, Greenland will also be allowed to claim independence in the future ([Government of Greenland] Citation2009, § 21).

Current challenges in overcoming the colonial legacy

In 2014, Greenland’s government (Naalakkersuisut) established the Reconciliation Commission to deal with the injustices of the past (Rud Citation2017, 133–135). The Commission’s attention was focused specifically on the ‘modernization period’ after 1953, which is perceived as very destructive. Greenland has not yet received official apologies for the inflicted wrongdoings; in 2015 a partial apology was made for the relocation of Inuit children to Denmark in the 1950s (Otzen Citation2015). In its report, completed in 2017, the Reconciliation Commission concludes that the consequences of colonial oppression are still evident in most of Greenland’s population (Forsoningskommission Citation2017; CBC News Citation2018). The Commission has also issued several recommendations, including the need for an apology for condemned abuses (e.g. forced evictions, family separation, and social discrimination) (CBC News Citation2018). However, there is no consensus on this issue among the members of the Danish Parliament. On the contrary, Danish engagement in Greenland is seen by many as a successful civilization mission. Hence, Greenland has not yet received an official apology, as the Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said in 2010: ‘History cannot be changed. The government regards the colonial period as a closed part of our shared history. We must be pleased with the fact that the times have changed’ (Rud Citation2017, 131). Similar views were held by former Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt opposed the establishment of the Reconciliation Commission (Rud Citation2017, 134).

It should be noted that since World War II the global image of the inhabitants of Greenland has undergone major changes. In the spirit of the traditional Western concept of less-developed nations, corresponding to Said’s critique of Orientalism (Said Citation1978), Greenland has been sometimes presented as merely a mass of ice and its social dimension marginalized (Dodds & Nuttall Citation2018, 139). Even in 1951, American sociologist Roucek described the inhabitants of Greenland as a handful of Eskimos surviving on the brink of existence in the south of the island (Dodds & Nuttall Citation2018, 139). Since 1977, the interests of all Inuit have been protected by the Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC). As one of the six Arctic indigenous organizations, the ICC’s members attend the Arctic Council, alongside representatives of the Arctic powers. Thus, the Council’s decisions not only require the consent of all eight member states (see footnote 3) but are also consulted with the indigenous people of the Arctic (Steinberg et al. Citation2015, 112–139).

Following after the publication of report by the U.S. Geological Society in 2008, which predicted significant oil and gas extraction potential (USGS Citation2008), Greenland and the whole Arctic region became the centre of modern interest. Greenland is also rich in reserves of uranium, gold, silver, platinum, zinc, nickel, lead, iron ore and, not least, rare-earth elements (17 elements listed in the Periodic Table: scandium, yttrium, and elements in the lanthanide group) (Arctic Institute Citation2020). The rare-earth elements are mainly used in electrical engineering (e.g. for mobile phones, computers, wind turbines) and the demand for them is constantly increasing, making them strategic raw materials (Scientific American Citation2019). Their extraction is expensive and environmentally demanding. Today, most rare-earth elements are exported from China, which sees Greenland as an opportunity to expand its production (Arctic Institute Citation2020). Furthermore, with regard to rare-earth elements, the USA is likely to have the same interests as China (Yuyan & Stringer Citation2019). According to recent studies (e.g. Charles et al. Citation2013), Greenland has the potential to guarantee 25% of the global demand for rare-earth elements.

Mining is precisely what Greenland’s Government sees as the key to the necessary diversification of the island’s economy. China has already committed to investing in several mining projects and is not hiding its economic ambitions in the region (Breum & Chemnitz Citation2013). Its intentions were confirmed in 2018, with the publication of the first Arctic Policy, in which China refers to itself as a ‘near-Arctic state’ (Arctic Institute Citation2020). However, Denmark is concerned about the possible expansion of China’s political influence. Although Copenhagen maintains friendly relations with Beijing, it does not want to be left out of the Sino-Greenland dialogue (Jakobsen Citation2014). The situation is complicated by the fact that Greenland is in both NATO’s and the USA’s sphere of interest. According to the ‘Iqaliku Agreement’ of 2004 (Department of State [USA] Citation2004), which is an amendment and supplement of the aforementioned defence agreement between the USA and Denmark from 1951, both NATO and the USA are still responsible for the island’s defence (World Politics Review Citation2018). Ulrik Pram Gad states: ‘Denmark may also fear that if Greenland diversifies its economy too successfully, Copenhagen would lose relevance in Washington’ (World Politics Review Citation2018). However, American investment does not raise any suspicions. On the contrary, it is welcomed, according to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2018 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark Citationn.d.).

The Self-Government Act of Citation2009 overcame the last legislative obstacle, and today the local authorities benefit from all revenues earned by mining ([Government of Greenland] Citation2009, §7). Depending on the revenues, the volume of Danish funds annually flowing to Greenland will be reduced proportionally ([Government of Greenland] Citation2009, § 8). The block grant is fixed at about DKK 3.7 billion (EUR 500 million) (Statistics Greenland Citation2018), which represents two-thirds of Greenland’s public budget. As more and more areas are transferred under Greenland’s direct administration, the grant will gradually be reduced. According to the ‘Icelandic model’ (Iceland achieved financial independence by establishing a personal union in 1918), economic independence should precede political independence and the solution could be foreign investment and development of extractive industry. Time will tell whether Greenland is ready for such a challenge. However, this will cause further challenges and the social stratification of Inuit society, which until recently was alien to any form of private property (R. Petersen Citation1995). Overcoming these challenges could contribute greatly to Greenland finding its position in today’s globalized world.

Faroese history under direct Danish administration

The first mention of the Faroe Islands probably dates from c. AD 825, when Irish monk Dicuil wrote about hermits from Ireland living on the islands to the north of Britain long before the Vikings arrived (Wylie Citation1987, 7). Recent studies (e.g. Church et al. Citation2013) confirm Dicuil’s claim, as the dating of the first settlements in the Faroe Islands was estimated as 300–500 years before the Viking inhabited the islands in the early 9th century (Wilie 1987, 9). In the 10th century, the Vikings held regular meetings in the area of the present-day capital, Torshavn (Wilie 1987, 9), and these gave rise to the Faroese parliament, Løgting (literally, ‘law thing’). The parliament is often claimed to be one of the oldest in the world (Červenka Citation2015; logting.fo Citationn.d.). In 1035, the Faroes became a Norwegian province, associated mainly with the Norwegian port city of Bergen (Červenka Citation2015). As a result of the union between Norway and Denmark (see the section ‘Greenlandic colonial history’), Danish political and economic influence gradually increased and in 1720 the Faroe Islands became a Danish county (Hořejšová Citation2006). Their formal incorporation into the Kingdom of Denmark occurred after the Danish ‘revolution’ of 1848–1849 (Wylie Citation1987, 90–91), when Denmark was transformed from absolute into a constitutional monarchy and the Faroe Islands were subject to a new constitution (Adler-Nissen Citation2014, 58), under which the Faroese can still elect two members to the Danish Parliament (Rogvi Citation2004, 37).

The origins of Faroese nationalism dates back to the 1880s. The national consciousness strongly supported the creation of a literary form of the Faroese language in 1846. Today, most people on the Faroe Islands speak Faroese, as well as Danish, and Faroese has retained the status of one of the most original Nordic languages due to the islands’ isolation (Červenka Citation2015, 103). It gained equal status with Danish in 1938 and 10 years later became the principal language of the Faroe Islands (Government of the Faroe Islands Citationn.d., Section 11). As in the case of Iceland and Greenland, the initial nationalist ideas were formed among the ranks of young scholars residing in Copenhagen during their studies (Wylie Citation1987; Červenka Citation2015). The Faroese nationalist movement gradually divided into two streams and at the beginning of the 20th century the Faroese founded their first political parties. Conservatives advocating the continuation of the close association with the Kingdom of Denmark established the Union Party (Sambandsflokkurin). The Self-Government or Home Rule Party (Sjálvstýrisflokkurin) was founded by a radical stream, requested greater strengthening of Faroese self-government (Ackrén Citation2006; Brachtl Citation2010). The question of future the Faroe Island’s future relationship with Denmark represents a dividing line in the Faroese political scene to this day.

World War II was one of the most important periods in Faroese history. As a result of the Danish occupation by Germany, the UK took care of the protection of the Faroe Islands (i.e. as well as Iceland). Many Faroese gradually concluded that they could take care of themselves without Danish protection (Hořejšová Citation2006), and Faroese ships began to sail under their own flag (Merkið). Løgting proceeded to issue a provisional constitution, substantially increasing its powers at the expense of the Danish governor of the Faroe Islands (Rogvi Citation2004, 31). In terms of constitutional development, this was an unprecedented matter: ‘In four years, the Faroe Islands went through much the same process as other countries took decades to complete’ (Rogvi Citation2004, 31). The strengthening national self-confidence and the inspiration drawn from the independence of Iceland (1944) led the Faroese to hold a referendum on their independence in 1946. A narrow majority of the population supported a declaration of independence and thus took the Danes completely by surprise (Hovgaard & Ackrén Citation2017, 71).

Change in political status and modernization

Although the Faroese Parliament declared independence, it was subsequently dissolved by the King of Denmark (Hovgaard & Ackrén Citation2017, 71). The referendum was recognized as only consultative and when new elections were held in November 1946 they were dominated by pro-unionist parties in favour of staying with Denmark (Hovgaard & Ackrén Citation2017, 71). However, after negotiations with the representatives of Denmark, the Faroese achieved some success in the form of the ‘Home Rule Act’ signed in 1948 (Government of the Faroe Islands Citationn.d.). Hence, the Faroe Islands have become a self-governing territory and the Home Rule Act still forms the framework of Faroese-Danish relations. Its interpretation is based on the term ‘negotiation’, which has variable meanings and gives the issue of autonomy considerable scope for further adjustments (Adler-Nissen Citation2014, 60). In practice, negotiation means that Faroese governance is gradually expanding to more and more areas of administration (Adler-Nissen Citation2014, 60).

The next four decades after the Home Rule Act of 1948 was passed constituted a relatively stable period in the Faroe Islands’ history and were accompanied by considerable socio-economic progress. There was a significant increase in the amount of money from Denmark going to the Faroes, which in certain periods accounted for up to one-third of the Faroese income (Hořejšová Citation2006). Several Danish modernization projects were established, and the Faroese economy saw a high rate of growth (Adler-Nissen Citation2014, 61). For some time, the standard of living in the Faroes even exceeded the standard of living in Denmark (Adler-Nissen Citation2014, 61). In 1973, the Faroese refused to follow Denmark in its accession to the EC and to join the European Economic Area (EEA). The members of Løgting decided unanimously against joining the EC and the EAA because they particularly feared the loss of control over the fishing areas (Rebhan Citation2016). Like Greenland, the Faroes have gradually signed their own bilateral agreements with the European Union (EU). However, unlike Greenland, they do not have the status of an overseas country and territory of the EU. Thus, the question of Faroese membership of the EU remains open. The clash on this issue has traditionally occurred between unionist (pro-EU) and nationalist (anti-EU) parties (Rebhan Citation2016).

The rise in living standards was interrupted only in the 1990s, when the Faroe Islands were hit by a serious economic crisis. Decreasing fish stocks in local waters led to a deep economic downturn, unemployment, and emigration of c.10% of the population to Denmark (Adler-Nissen Citation2014, 61). The crisis spread to the banking sector and caused a collapse of the two largest Faroese banks (Karlsson Citation2009, 151). Representatives of the Faroe Islands and Denmark began to blame each other for the situation (Adler-Nissen Citation2014, 61–62). For the Faroese separatists, especially members and supporters of the Republican Party (Tjóðveldi) and People’s Party (Fólkaflokkurin), the crisis showed the need for political and economic independence (Adler-Nissen Citation2014, 62). The Faroese entered the new millennium faced with the challenge of declaring independence and in March of 2000 opened negotiations with Denmark. They even referred the matter to the UN, which subsequently considered the problem to be an internal affair of Denmark (Rogvi Citation2004, 4). The situation did not improve with the announcement of a new referendum, which was cancelled at the last minute, as the Faroese were feared that the supply of Danish subsidies would end (Ackrén Citation2006). The then Danish Prime Minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, told the Fareose that full independence also meant full economic responsibility (Adler-Nissen Citation2014, 63). The solution was not found until 2005 in the form of the ‘Takeover Act’ (Government of the Faroe Islands Citation2005a). This marked the largest expansion of Faroese self-government since the Home Rule Act. In the same year, both parties (i.e. Denmark and the Faroe Islands) signed the Foreign Policy Act (Government of the Faroe Islands Citation2005b), which strengthened Faroese jurisdiction in matters of foreign policy. However, the overall responsibility for foreign policy, security, judicial administration, and monetary policy of both the Faroes and Greenland still belongs to Denmark (Government of the Faroe Islands Citation2005b).

The question of national security is still very sensitive issue. The Faroe Islands lie in the strategic waters of the ‘GIUK Gap’, which refers to ocean areas between the mainland of Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom (Dodds & Nuttall Citation2016, 107–108) (the abbreviation GIUK is derived from the first letters of the names Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom). The strategic importance of this link between the Arctic Seas and the Atlantic Ocean was proven especially during World War II, when the Allies provided supplies to the Soviet Union (Dodds & Nuttall Citation2016, 107). In the event of independence, a small Faroese nation would have to be prepared to defend the GIUK Gap, which has raised concerns among its people.

Current challenges on the way to greater autonomy

The current Faroese Government aims to foster a sustainable economy, invest in subsea tunnels – some of which already connect some of the islands, and strengthen engagement in international relations, for example by obtaining observer status in the UN and independent membership of the Nordic Council (Government of the Faroe Islands Citation2019). Furthermore, the government’s coalition could follow the goal of the previous government and hold a referendum on the adoption of a new constitution, which should definitively confirm that power over the Faroe Islands is in the hands of the Faroese.

The referendum was originally scheduled to take place on 25 April 2018 and there had to be a period of six months between the adoption of the referendum proposal and the referendum being held (Nationalia Citation2018). However, the proposal has not yet been adopted (June 2021). The attempt to announce the constitution had already led to disagreements when, in 2011, former Danish Prime Minister, Lars L. Rasmussen, claimed that it was not compatible with Denmark’s constitution and that in practice its adoption meant a proclamation of independence (Icenews Citation2011). Although the new constitution in effect reaffirms the right of the Faroese to self-determination (Source Citation2015), the current government does not speak about full independence (Government of the Faroe Islands Citation2019). Former Faroese Prime Minister, Aksel V. Johannesen (Social Democratic Party), summed up the meaning of the Constitution as follows: ‘The new constitution will define our identity as a nation and our fundamental rights and duties as a people, including our right to self-determination as well as relations to membership in supranational organisations, such as the EU’ (Hannen Citation2018). Thus, the issue of seeking a national identity is still present in political discussions.

In the Faroe Islands, economic debates are most often connected with the question of economic sustainability and the supply of Danish subsidies, which now amount to c. DDK 640 million (EUR 85 million) (Faroeislands.no Citation2017). In comparison with Greenland, this is a significantly lower amount. In 2016, it accounted for c.13% of the revenue of the Faroese State Treasury, which was only 3.3% of the country’s GDP (Faroeislands.no Citation2017). Moreover, both indicators have a long-term downward trend (Faroeislands.no Citation2017). To achieve self-sufficiency, the Faroese, as well as the Greenlanders, intend to gradually reduce their dependence on Danish subsidies. The vulnerability of both economies lies in their link to the export of fish and related products (including aquaculture products), which account for more than 90% of the total export value (Hagstova Føroya Citation2021; Statistics Greenland Citation2018). In the case of the Faroe Islands, aquaculture is steadily growing and is responsible for about half of the islands’ export value (Faroese Sea Food Citation2018). Still, the purchase price of fish and fossil fuel prices fundamentally affect the economies of both autonomous territories and underline the need for their diversification.

The Faroese see the greatest hope in the extraction of oil and gas. Preliminary surveys predict reserves on the continental shelf off the Faroe Islands (Karlsson Citation2009). However, exploratory drilling, which started in 2001, has not yet led to any commercially useful discoveries. High expectations are evident from the former Faroese Prime Minister, Kaj Leo Johannesen, who said: ‘With our population of around 49,500 people this means we could become as rich as Qatar overnight’ (Nordic Labour Journal Citation2013). Before the Faroese obtain their wealth from fossil fuels, the most promising sectors to develop seem to be tourism and aquaculture (Hovgaard & Ackrén Citation2017, 72). Today, the Faroe Islands are visited by over 100,000 tourists a year and are regularly ranked among the most renowned destinations that are resisting the onslaught of mass tourism (Faroeislands.no Citation2019).