Importance Score: 85 / 100 🟢
Documentary on Greenland Mine Sparks Political Storm in Denmark and Greenland
A recently aired documentary film focusing on decades of Danish exploitation of a cryolite mine in southern Greenland has ignited a significant political and public debate. Producer Michael Bévort noted the film’s impact quickly surpassed even major global news events, reflecting the deep-seated sensitivities surrounding Greenland’s relationship with Denmark. Greenland’s White Gold, a 55-minute exposé, unveiled substantial financial gains for Denmark from the Greenlandic mine, triggering sharply contrasting reactions in Greenland and Denmark.
Divergent Reactions in Greenland and Denmark
In Greenland, still under Danish realm with Denmark controlling foreign affairs and defense, the documentary sparked widespread anger and profound sadness. Released amidst a crucial election period, already globally注目ed due to international interest in the Arctic island and geopolitical considerations, the film resonated deeply with Greenlandic voters. A survey by the Greenlandic newspaper Sermitsiaq indicated that over a third of voters stated the documentary would influence their electoral decisions.
Furthermore, in Greenland, the documentary provided a sense of validation. Long-held narratives about the now-abandoned town of Ivittuut, often shared through personal accounts, were seemingly corroborated by a prominent public institution – DR, the Danish Broadcasting Corporation.
Political Fallout in Nuuk
The documentary’s political repercussions were felt intensely in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital. Some observers suggested it could reshape the power dynamics between Greenland and Denmark, traditionally portrayed as Greenland’s financial dependence on Denmark. Múte B Egede, Greenland’s then-Prime Minister, highlighted the documentary’s revelation: “A new documentary film demonstrates that Denmark has generated at least 400 billion kroner (£46 billion) from a single mine.”
Danish Media Backlash
Initial responses in Denmark included some positive reception; however, Danish media soon shifted to a critical stance. This reversal followed public questioning by an economist featured in the film, who challenged the interpretation of the financial figures presented. Bévort described the ensuing media storm as intensely negative, telling the Observer, “It was the worst ‘shit storm,’ almost ever.”
Controversy Over Financial Calculations
Criticism predominantly focused on the calculated figure of 400 billion Danish kroner. This sum represented the documentary team’s estimate of Denmark’s gross revenue from the cryolite mine over 133 years, adjusted to present-day value.
Torben M Andersen, an economics professor from Aarhus University and head of the Greenland Economic Council, featured in the documentary, expressed reservations about the calculation. He cautioned that the figure represented turnover from 1854 to 1987, not actual profit. The documentary itself clarified that the 400 billion kroner figure, derived from Danish national archives’ logbooks, reflected overall turnover. This was due to the fact that, as commonly understood in colonial economic models, production expenditures, including labor and equipment, predominantly benefited Denmark.
DR Defends Documentary Initially, Then Reverses Course
For a ten-day period, DR initially defended the documentary. Despite objections from politicians, including Denmark’s culture minister, Jakob Engel-Schmidt, who labeled it “poor journalistic craftsmanship,” and dissenting economists, DR’s news director, Sandy French, stood firm. French asserted, “There have been no breaches of press ethics guidelines, there are no factual inaccuracies or unaddressed reservations.”
However, DR subsequently reversed its position. The broadcaster announced the withdrawal and “depublication” of the documentary, coinciding with the resignation of DR’s news editor-in-chief, Tholmas Falbe. French attributed the change to newly discovered information regarding a graph on total accumulated cryolite sales. This graph, previously removed from an earlier version for inaccuracy, became the decisive factor.
French explained, “It might seem like a minor detail compared to the broader debate surrounding the documentary, but this new discovery is critical for me because the accuracy of the presentation must be unimpeachable.” Bévort, seeking a new platform for the documentary, characterized the rare depublication as politically motivated. “It’s unrelated to the film itself. They are targeting DR,” he stated.
Political Motivations Behind Depublication Alleged
Rune Lykkeberg, editor-in-chief of the Danish newspaper Information, echoed this sentiment. He argued, “Not political in the sense of ‘we need to censor this message to appease the government’, but politically motivated at a corporate level to ‘protect our brand and manage the fallout’.”
He elaborated on DR’s public service role, akin to the BBC, where the government’s culture minister appoints the head of the board, who in turn appoints DR’s formally independent CEO. Lykkeberg noted that heavy criticism of the documentary also constituted a political overreach.
Lykkeberg deemed the move to depublish a “terrible decision.” He emphasized the documentary’s contribution to public discourse, making it a “public fact” under consideration and therefore in the public interest to remain accessible. “Obscuring the film being discussed benefits no one. And the documentary presents no danger,” he concluded.
Greenlandic Government’s Response
Naaja Nathanielsen, a minister in both the outgoing and newly formed Greenlandic government, described DR’s action as “an overreaction.” She suggested, “It is more connected to Denmark’s internal perception of their actions in Greenland, rather than the actual content of this film,” speaking to the Observer.
While refraining from commenting on the specific financial figures due to lack of direct review, she expressed belief in their general accuracy. “I do believe it’s a fair representation of the economic relationship between Greenland and Denmark,” Nathanielsen stated. “I have sufficient confidence in the numbers to affirm they depict a correct interpretation of historical dynamics – even considering increased Danish investment in Greenland later on.”
Differing Narratives Between Greenland and Denmark
Nathanielsen cautioned against fixating solely on the financial data, arguing it “distracts” from the fundamental debate. “In Greenland, we can accommodate dual narratives…acknowledging historical issues with Denmark, past wrongs, and rights violations. Simultaneously, we can recognize and appreciate Denmark’s positive contributions as well. Both perspectives can coexist for us,” she explained.
However, she observed a contrasting viewpoint in Denmark, particularly within Danish media. “There appears to be a preference for a singular narrative: Denmark was benevolent towards Greenland, end of discussion.”
DR and the Danish Minister for Culture declined to provide comment to the Observer.