Greenland, Pine Gap, and the Moment Australia Must Choose

It is a sign of how far things have slid that US allies and members of NATO now feel the need to issue statements that amount to: do not invade us. Yet that is exactly where Europe has landed over Greenland, with leaders publicly have felt the need to issue a statement reaffirming that Greenland belongs to its people and that only Greenland and Denmark can decide its future.

In any sane world, this would be unthinkable. In today’s world, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen is saying Trump “should be taken seriously” when he talks about taking Greenland, and warning that such a move could rupture NATO itself.

So here is the question that matters for Australia: if the United States crosses the line from threats to force, will Canberra finally say “that’s enough.” Or will we look away and keep enabling the machine through joint facilities like Pine Gap?

That question isn’t hypothetical. It is the hard edge of sovereignty. It is the moment when our US alliance loyalty collides with our true like-minded friends, but also international law, morality, and our national interests.

Pine Gap isn’t symbolic: it is operational

Australians are often encouraged to think of Pine Gap as a vague “intelligence relationship”. That framing is convenient, because it allows leaders to avoid the direct question: what is Pine Gap for, and what does it enable?

Pine Gap, officially the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap, is actually a ground control and processing site for US signals intelligence satellites - a critical part of how the United States collects and processes intelligence and targets its weapons across vast parts of the globe.  Australian governments have also defended the facility on the basis that intelligence collected there supports our national security and contributes to arms control verification.

But there is a sharper reality sitting alongside those assurances. Pine Gap provides detailed geolocation intelligence that’s used to locate targets, including for special forces and drone strikes.  Whatever you think of those operations, that reporting makes one thing plain: Pine Gap isn’t just a listening post. It’s an integral part of the US architecture of war.

And that is why Greenland matters. Because if the Trump Regime crosses into outright aggression against an ally or partner, the debate is no longer about whether Pine Gap is helpful. It becomes about whether Australian territory is being used - directly or indirectly - to facilitate actions that we would never defend as lawful or legitimate.

The comforting fiction: “we’re not involved”

When these questions arise, the standard political move is to retreat into ambiguity: “we can’t comment on intelligence matters”. Another classic line is that Pine Gap is “joint”, so we have “visibility”, so everything is fine but we can’t tell you because it’s secret.

But “joint” doesn’t automatically mean “veto”. And “visibility” doesn’t automatically mean “control”. If the Trump Regime invades Greenland, the easy path for Canberra would be a familiar one: issue a carefully worded statement about de-escalation and sovereignty, express “concern”, and then avoid any admission that Australian-based capabilities are supporting US operations.

But that would be a betrayal of Denmark and Europe. That’s how complicity works in modern alliances: not through dramatic declarations, but through silence, inertia, and a refusal to ask or answer the obvious questions.

When a moment like Greenland arrives, and the lie is exposed. If the most powerful country in the world starts treating allied territory as negotiable, what, exactly, is the alliance for? What do “shared values” really mean, if sovereignty is conditional and borders and treaties are optional?

Australia may be geographically distant from the Arctic, but we are not distant from the systems that make US global power effective. Pine Gap is one of those systems.

The question Australia has been avoiding

If you strip away the jargon, the dilemma is brutally simple:

If the Trump Regime does something Australia believes is illegal and indefensible - something as extreme as invading Greenland - will Australia keep enabling US capability because our US alliance must be preserved at all costs?

Or will we finally accept that the world has changed and the US has become a rogue state - and that there must be limits, conditions, and consequences?

The argument isn’t anti-American. It is pro-law. It is pro-democracy. It is pro-sovereignty. It is the belief that Australia shouldn’t outsource our moral agency to any great power.

That’s the real issue Greenland raises for us. Not whether Trump is bluffing. Not whether Denmark will hold firm. Not whether Europe can speak with one voice.

The issue is whether Australia has the courage to say, when it matters: No. Not from our soil. Not with our support. Not in our name.

Photo of Pine Gap from The Australian.