As Greenland Melts, Global Politics Heats Up
Christopher Paller Gerale [email protected]
Introduction
Resembling to adhering to the "northward course" philosophy by Vilhjalmur Stefansson, which inspired William Henry Seward to acquire Alaska in the 19th century (Weigert, 1944), the Greenland episode, as we might see it, is a microcosm of the challenges facing the Arctic and, by extension, the global order. As the region transitions from a remote, isolated expanse to a "geostrategic hotspot," as Rahmati (2020) described it, it starkly mirrors the larger shifts within international relations, where climate change, resource competition, and great power rivalry collide. The United States’ ambitions in the Arctic are, in one sense, a rational pursuit of national interests. However, such pursuits cannot ignore the necessity of multilateral engagement and adherence to international norms. Unilateral moves like the Greenland proposal, by no means ad libitum, could risk undermining the very cooperative frameworks that are essential to addressing the Arctic’s unique challenges—the international law. The growing Chinese presence in the Arctic and its ambitions in the region have sparked intense discussions (Mohr, 2020) about whether China represents an opportunity, a pride for the government of the People's Republic of China, or a challenge for Arctic nations, as per the black propaganda of the West. So as to delve deeper into the unfolding geopolitics of the Arctic, it becomes clear that the region is not only a matter of territorial disputes but also a symbol of a larger, more complex geopolitical struggle that favors power politics over diplomacy.
?
The Arctic’s New Cold War
Initially, the Greenlanders refrained from involving themselves in foreign affairs, recognizing their limitations in this area. Over time, however, foreign affairs became an integral part of their efforts to take control of their own future (Heinrich, 2017; Kristensen & Rahbek-Clemmensen, 2017). Greenland's current political relations and Greenlandic identity are both shaped by a history of colonialism and contested sovereignty. By acknowledging indigenous peoples, the power dynamics of Euro-American societies and post-colonial communities continue to be reinforced, though in a different language and through alternative methods (Sowa, 2013). Greenland, the world's largest island and home to some of the world's most northern settlements, had been inhabited by people for millennia before the first Europeans, Icelandic, and Norwegian Vikings, came to its shores in the late tenth century. Originally a Norwegian territory, Greenland came under Copenhagen when Denmark and Norway formed a personal union in fourteenth century, and it stayed under the Danish crown when the dual monarchy was absolved with the Treaty of Kiel after the Napoleonic wars (Kristensen & Rahbek-Clemmensen, 2017). And during World War II and the Cold War, which is important to remember, the United States utilized Greenland as a strategic base and an extension of its security and foreign policy efforts (Ackrén & Jakobsen, 2015). Now, as the polar ice caps continue to melt, the Arctic is shedding its historical isolation and rapidly becoming a critical nexus for trade, resources, and security. This shift not only has global implications but, in the U.S. context, signals an urgent need to assert its dominance in a region where Russia and China are increasingly asserting their presence. The U.S. sees acquiring Greenland as a strategic maneuver to counter Russia’s military buildup and China’s economic encroachment in the Arctic. Russia, as part of its broader strategy, has been systematically reestablishing Cold War-era military bases, deploying nuclear-powered icebreakers, and making sweeping territorial claims.
?
Donald Trump’s Transactional Diplomacy
As per Trump’s vision, the proposal to purchase Greenland epitomized the transactional approach to foreign policy that defined much of his tenure. For Trump, Greenland was not a sovereign territory with its own political and cultural complexities, but rather a bargaining chip in a larger geopolitical game. His framing of the acquisition as a “real estate deal” served to commodify the island, thereby reducing its historical and cultural significance to mere economic utility. This perspective, as critics argued, overlooked the sensitivities of Denmark and Greenland’s indigenous peoples, who have a deep-rooted connection to the land and its autonomy. This approach reflected a broader, increasingly apparent trend in U.S. foreign policy under Trump—a retreat from multilateralism and a preference for unilateral action driven by transactional calculations. The audacity of the Greenland proposal, widely ridiculed as emblematic of Trump's disregard for diplomatic protocol, can be seen as a symptom of a wider disregard for established international norms. It represents a worldview where the pursuit of national interests is unencumbered by the collaborative processes that traditionally define global diplomacy. As the U.S. positions itself in a multipolar world, this transactional diplomacy risks alienating potential allies and deepening global divisions, rather than fostering the cooperative partnerships necessary to address complex global challenges. Nevertheless, it is important to understand why Trump might have adopted such an approach. In the face of rising global competition, particularly from China and Russia, his administration likely viewed these actions as necessary to assert U.S. dominance and secure strategic advantages in an increasingly multipolar world. While the tactics were unconventional, they reflected the urgency of securing American interests in a shifting global order, where traditional diplomatic norms seemed increasingly insufficient to protect national security and economic interests.
领英推荐
?
China and the Paradiplomacy of Greenland
It is crucial to examine the relationship between Greenland and China within the context of Danish sovereignty and Greenland's potential independence from Denmark, as this brings up significant political and security concerns. For Denmark, maintaining sovereignty over Greenland enhances its role within NATO, particularly because the island makes Denmark the third largest country in the alliance by size (Ackren & Jakobsen, 2015) and hosts the U.S. Thule Air Base in northern Greenland (Rahbek-Clemmensen, 2016). More importantly, if Greenland were to gain independence, Denmark’s influence in the Arctic Council would be significantly diminished, as it would lose its only territory situated north of the Arctic Circle. Meanwhile, China, boldly declaring itself a “near-Arctic state,” has embedded the Arctic in its Belt and Road Initiative, especially under the Ice Silk Road initiative (冰上丝绸之路), expanding its investments and scientific presence in the region. Just like building airports in Greenland, Greenland has at least some priority in parts of the Chinese state system and vice versa (Andersson, Zeuthen, & Kalvig, 2018). For China, the focus of security is economic, as it seeks the resources necessary to sustain its growing economy and solidify its status as a global power. In contrast, for Greenland, the objective is centered on identity, which could be enhanced through independence supported by income generated from investments by Chinese companies (Dubois, 2018). For instance, London Mining, a British mining company, alongside Greenland's self-government authority, was enticing China to invest $2 billion in an iron-ore mine located approximately 175 kilometers north of Nuuk, the capital, near the Greenland ice sheet (Breum & Chemnitz, 2013). This backdrop of intensifying geopolitical competition directly frames the U.S. interest in Greenland as a strategic maneuver, hence aiming to strengthen its position within a rapidly evolving global order. By securing Greenland, the U.S. hopes to solidify its dominance not only in Arctic geopolitics but also in the emerging trade routes and defense considerations that could reshape the future of global commerce and military strategy. Yet, while these strategic calculations may seem sound, they also invite questions about the long-term implications of such moves. The United States risks exacerbating tensions, possibly rekindling an Arctic “Cold War” with Russia and China, if these rival powers perceive U.S. actions as a direct challenge to their own interests. Needless to say, Greenland’s vast reserves of rare earth minerals, oil, and gas undeniably enhance its strategic value, particularly as the global demand for such resources continues to surge. Rare earth elements, essential for everything from modern electronics to defense technologies, are currently under China’s near-total control (Jacobson & Peng, 2012; Lanteigne, 2014; Brady, 2017; Lackenbauer et al., 2018; S?rensen, 2018). By securing Greenland’s resources, the United States would not only reduce its dependence on China but would also gain greater control over these critical supply chains, thereby strengthening its economic and technological security. However, this resource-centric view of Greenland comes with notable complexities. The Arctic, already sensitive due to its changing environment, is becoming an increasingly contested space. The warming climate is unlocking new opportunities for commercial fishing, tourism, and resource extraction, all of which hold economic potential but also present significant environmental risks. The drive for economic gain in Greenland may lead to greater industrial exploitation, which could disrupt the region’s fragile ecosystems. This contradiction becomes especially apparent as the very factors that make the region more accessible—namely climate change—are also driving the need for more stringent environmental protections. Thus, while economic security is a valid concern, the pursuit of it must be carefully weighed against the environmental costs, which could undermine the very stability the U.S. seeks to secure through its Arctic ambitions.
?
Conclusion
The United States’ interest in Greenland is not merely a matter of national ambition but rather a reflection of deeper anxieties about its shifting position in an increasingly multipolar world. While the proposal was, justifiably, ridiculed for its simplistic and transactional outlook, it also highlights the growing geopolitical importance of the Arctic. Moving forward, the United States must reassess its approach, balancing its strategic goals with an ethical responsibility to uphold environmental stewardship and respect for sovereignty. The future of the Arctic should not be dictated by power plays and transactional politics but rather through collaborative, multilateral efforts that prioritize sustainability, stability, and the well-being of the region’s indigenous populations. As global powers continue to vie for influence, the focus should shift from competition to cooperation, ensuring that the Arctic remains a zone of peaceful cooperation rather than conflict.
?
References