Muslim World Report

Greenland's Future: U.S. Ambitions and Denmark's Sovereignty

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 30, 2025 9:19 AM | 12 min read | 2555 words

TL;DR: The discourse surrounding the U.S. interest in Greenland highlights significant geopolitical tensions, Indigenous rights, and the implications of colonial legacies. As the debate evolves, prioritizing Greenlandic voices and autonomy is crucial. Key outcomes could include:

  • Potential escalations in tensions with Russia.
  • Empowerment of Indigenous self-determination.
  • The reshaping of NATO and transatlantic relations.

The Greenland Debate: Unpacking Geopolitical Tensions and Their Global Consequences

The recent discourse surrounding the United States’ interest in Greenland transcends mere geographical disputes; it represents a crucial junction in the ongoing struggle for power and influence at a global level. Following former President Donald Trump’s provocative remarks about acquiring Greenland, the situation has elicited sharp reactions from Denmark, criticism from political leaders in the U.S., and a broader international discussion about colonialism, sovereignty, and military dominance. The implications of this debate extend far beyond the ice-covered island, touching upon issues of self-determination, NATO, and the intricate balance of power among global superpowers.

Historically, Greenland has existed within the orbit of Danish colonial legacy, yet the implications of American military presence in Europe—and specifically in Greenland—are often overlooked. Some salient points regarding U.S. involvement include:

  • The U.S. has invested over $22 trillion into NATO since 1949, hinting at a complex relationship that may reflect a more dependent dynamic (Østerud & Hønneland, 2017).
  • Denmark’s reaction underscores a growing unease regarding America’s dual role as protector and potential aggressor.
  • This tension raises questions about the future of transatlantic partnerships, especially amidst escalating tensions with Russia and China.

As the Greenland debate unfolds, it is imperative to prioritize the rights and desires of the Greenlandic people in discussions about their governance. In a geopolitical landscape increasingly defined by superpower competition, any shift in control over Greenland could exacerbate tensions not only between the U.S. and Denmark but also with Russia, which harbors its own strategic ambitions in the Arctic (Peng & Wegge, 2015). This discourse invites a candid examination of self-determination, sovereignty, and the historical context of colonialism shaping perceptions of U.S. foreign policy (Haneef, 2003).

What If Greenland Were to Be Acquired by the U.S.?

Should the United States successfully acquire Greenland, the repercussions would reverberate throughout the Arctic and beyond. Some potential consequences include:

  • Escalation of tensions with Russia: Russia has been ramping up its military presence in the region, aiming to safeguard its interests. The Arctic is rich in resources, including oil and minerals, and both American and Russian interests are vying for control (Ash, 2022).
  • Indigenous self-determination: The Greenland situation fits into a broader narrative of self-determination for Indigenous peoples who have long been marginalized by colonial powers (Tomiak, 2017). A U.S. acquisition may offer prospects for economic investment, but risks erasure of cultural identity and autonomy.

It is essential that any transition in governance authentically prioritizes the voice of the Greenlandic people—an aspect often sidelined in discussions dominated by geopolitical strategy (Christensen et al., 2017).

The U.S. has not merely “floated” the notion of acquiring Greenland; statements from the former administration suggested a willingness to pursue even military action to assert control (Rasmussen & Merkelsen, 1970). This aggressive posture resembles Russia’s actions in Ukraine, raising alarm in a region fraught with historical grievances surrounding colonialism and oppression. The potential for military escalation underscores the necessity for frameworks that respect the rights of Indigenous populations (Liamaz & McCarty, 2003).

Military and Strategic Ramifications

The strategic implications of such a U.S. acquisition of Greenland cannot be overstated. Key considerations include:

  • Solidifying U.S. military infrastructure in the Arctic.
  • Exerting significant influence over Arctic navigation routes, which are becoming increasingly important due to climate change.

The melting ice caps are opening up new shipping lanes and access to natural resources, leading to contested spaces among global powers. This geopolitical maneuvering would likely intensify military posturing in the Arctic, potentially creating a militarized region similar to past Cold War hotspots. Increased military presence from the U.S. could spur similar actions from Russia and other nations, creating a precarious standoff where incidents could escalate into larger confrontations. The Arctic could transform from a relatively peaceful area into a theater of geopolitical competition, provoking other nations to align themselves either with the U.S. or Russia based on evolving power dynamics (Yilmaz, 2017).

Economic Considerations

From an economic standpoint, while American investment could improve infrastructure and services in Greenland, there would be critical considerations regarding the benefit to local communities:

  • Large-scale projects often prioritize extraction and resource exploitation over sustainable development, potentially harming the environment and local livelihoods.
  • Involvement of the Greenlandic people in decision-making processes is crucial as they stand on the brink of potential change (Christensen et al., 2017).

The relationship between economic development and cultural preservation must be carefully navigated. For example, if the American military presence leads to economic opportunities, such as job creation in construction or tourism, there is a risk of commodifying the unique cultural heritage of Greenland. This underscores the need for transparent and inclusive dialogues that profoundly respect the rights of Indigenous communities (Czyzewski, 2011).

What If the U.S. Faces Strong Resistance from Denmark and NATO Allies?

If Denmark and other NATO allies mount a robust resistance against U.S. interests in Greenland, it could represent a critical turning point in transatlantic relations. Key factors include:

  • Denmark’s insistence on sovereignty reflects a broader trend of rising nationalism among European nations.
  • Their pushback could inspire other NATO members to reassess their dependence on U.S. military presence, potentially leading to a reevaluation of NATO’s operational philosophy amidst a complex geopolitical climate (Dauylbayev et al., 2024).

Such resistance could culminate in a reconfiguration of military alliances, with European nations striving to bolster their defense capabilities independently of U.S. support. This shift could stimulate the emergence of a more autonomous European defense framework, disrupting foundational dynamics that have characterized NATO since its inception (Dietl, 2006). A united front from European nations against American ambitions could catalyze a transition toward a multipolar world order, enhancing leverage for countries like China and Russia against a more fragmented Western alliance (Whitman, 2004).

Nationalism and Sovereignty

The reaction from Denmark could also reflect deeper undercurrents of nationalism across Europe. As the U.S. pushes for a more aggressive posture in Greenland, European nations might respond by asserting their sovereignty and reinforcing their identities. Potential outcomes include:

  • Catalyzing discussions around defense cooperation within Europe.
  • A more cohesive European defense strategy, where countries like France and Germany advocate for a unified European front, emphasizing that security in Europe should be managed by European nations themselves.

As NATO’s original purpose of collective defense is scrutinized, member nations may champion a more independent stance, reshaping the alliance’s future direction (Dauylbayev et al., 2024).

Empowering Indigenous Self-Determination

Additionally, strong resistance from Denmark and other NATO allies could empower the Greenlandic people, amplifying calls for autonomy or outright independence. The specter of U.S. military interest may evoke historical memories of colonialism, galvanizing the Greenlandic population to assert their rights and sovereignty more vocally. The international community must prioritize frameworks that honor Indigenous populations’ rights, recognizing their historical and cultural contexts (Czyzewski, 2011).

The idea of self-determination could become a rallying point, not just for Greenland but for other Indigenous groups worldwide. If Greenlanders can successfully advocate for greater autonomy or independence, this could inspire similar movements in other territories where Indigenous peoples have long been overlooked. The global discourse on self-determination and autonomy would gain momentum, echoing the voices of those who have faced oppression and marginalization within the geopolitical landscape.

What If the U.S. Retreats from Its Aggressive Stance?

Should the United States retreat from its aggressive posture regarding Greenland, the implications would be multifaceted. Such a withdrawal might symbolize a recognition of the limits of U.S. power, particularly in response to European opposition. Possible outcomes include:

  • A strategic pivot toward improved diplomatic relations, signaling a new era characterized more by negotiation than coercion (Smolar, 2011).
  • A collaborative approach to Arctic governance, wherein Indigenous interests and environmental considerations take precedence.

This realignment would allow the U.S. to engage constructively in international dialogues on climate change and resource management, positioning itself as a leader in addressing pressing global challenges (McKercher, 2015). By prioritizing diplomacy over military intervention, the U.S. could enhance its reputation on the global stage and build alliances based on mutual respect rather than fear.

Strengthening Diplomatic Relationships

A strategic retreat could lead to strengthened relationships between the U.S. and European allies, reinforcing transatlantic ties and improving multilateral collaboration. The U.S. could position itself as a partner rather than a competitor by engaging in discussions about shared challenges in the Arctic, such as environmental degradation and climate change.

Furthermore, this shift could signal to the international community that the U.S. is committed to respecting the rights of Indigenous populations and the principles of self-determination. This could open avenues for dialogue with Greenland’s leaders, ensuring that governance changes reflect the will of the people rather than abstract geopolitical strategies.

Risks of Withdrawal

However, this scenario carries inherent risks. A perceived U.S. withdrawal could embolden adversaries like Russia and China, resulting in more aggressive posturing in Arctic waters. The delicate balance of power in the region could shift, complicating relationships within NATO and spurring nations to assert their interests more aggressively.

As the U.S. retreats, it may also find itself at a disadvantage in terms of influence over Arctic policies. Russia’s increasing entrenchment in the region, fueled by its historical claims and military presence, could challenge U.S. interests. A power vacuum created by American withdrawal may embolden Russia to expand its influence further, leading to a militarization of the Arctic with dire consequences for global security.

Moreover, the U.S. must be cautious about the narrative of withdrawal. It must balance its desire to step back with the need to maintain a presence that deters aggression from adversarial nations. The Arctic can’t be allowed to devolve into a zero-sum game where military might dictates control over resources and navigation routes.

Strategic Maneuvers: Navigating the Complex Landscape

In light of the current geopolitical dynamics surrounding Greenland, diverse strategic actions are required from all parties involved. For the United States, it is essential to embrace a diplomatic approach that prioritizes genuine engagement with Greenland and Denmark. Some recommended actions include:

  • Authentically including Greenlanders in discussions about their future governance.
  • Recognizing their rights and desires as critical components of any policy decisions (Fortmann et al., 2010).

By engaging with local leaders and communities, the U.S. can help foster a sense of ownership among the Greenlandic people, ensuring that governance transitions reflect their aspirations rather than external pressures. The U.S. should reframe its military presence in the Arctic as a partnership aimed at addressing joint security concerns, rather than as a unilateral exertion of influence.

Denmark’s Role

For Denmark, it is imperative to uphold its sovereignty over Greenland while fostering dialogue with both the Greenlandic people and the U.S. Denmark should leverage its NATO membership to advocate for cooperative security measures, ensuring that all parties understand the historical and cultural implications of governance changes (Haneef, 2003).

This dialogue also presents an opportunity for Denmark to address its colonial past and engage with Greenlanders on equal terms. By working together to craft policies that respect Greenlandic identity and culture while addressing security interests, Denmark can emerge as a model for post-colonial relations.

Empowering Greenland

Greenland itself must remain central to these discussions, ensuring that any governance considerations honor the island’s unique identity and history. As the debate unfolds, empowering Greenlanders to voice their perspectives is crucial, allowing them to shape their destiny rather than being subjected to external decisions (Tomiak, 2017).

Creating platforms for dialogue and ensuring that Greenlandic voices are amplified will enhance the legitimacy of any political arrangements made regarding the island. The respect for Indigenous rights and cultural heritage must be interwoven into the fabric of governance discussions moving forward.

International Cooperation

Finally, broader international actors—including other NATO members and global powers like China and Russia—must remain engaged in the Arctic dialogue. As geopolitical interests evolve, fostering a collaborative and respectful environment among all stakeholders will be critical in addressing the complexities of Arctic governance. Engagement should prioritize shared responsibilities, recognizing the interconnectedness of environmental issues and the need for a cooperative approach to resource management.

In this context, multilateral agreements focusing on environmental protection and sustainable development must be prioritized. Such accords would not only address the environmental challenges posed by climate change but also promote stability in the region, decreasing the likelihood of conflict over resources.

Theoretical Implications

The debate surrounding Greenland is emblematic of larger issues within global politics, particularly concerning the interplay between power dynamics, colonial histories, and Indigenous rights. As nations navigate the complexities of their relationships with one another, engaging with Indigenous populations ensures a level of equity long absent in historical geopolitical discourse.

As interests collide and alliances are tested, the call for transparency, respect, and genuine partnership in international relations is paramount. Governments must recognize the interconnected nature of the modern geopolitical landscape, where actions in one region can significantly influence outcomes in another.

The Greenland debate encapsulates the intricacies of sovereignty, colonial legacies, and the pursuit of self-determination across the globe, serving as a critical case study for future discussions on these pressing issues. The pathways chosen by global powers will not only shape the future of Greenland and the U.S. but resonate globally, highlighting the interconnectedness inherent in modern geopolitics.

References

  • Abildgaard, M. S., Ren, C., Leyva-Mayorga, I., Stefanović, Č., Soret, B., & Popovski, P. (2022). Arctic Connectivity: A Frugal Approach to Infrastructural Development. ARCTIC. doi:10.14430/arctic74869.
  • Ash, J. D. (2022). An Arctic Promised Land: Greenlandic Independence and Security. Policy Studies Yearbook. doi:10.18278/psy.12.1.7.
  • Christensen, J., Arnfjord, S., Carraher, S., & Hedwig, T. (2017). Homelessness across Alaska, the Canadian North and Greenland: A Review of the Literature on a Developing Social Phenomenon in the Circumpolar North. ARCTIC. doi:10.14430/arctic4680.
  • Czyzewski, K. (2011). Colonialism as a Broader Social Determinant of Health. International Indigenous Policy Journal. doi:10.18584/iipj.2011.2.1.5.
  • Dauylbayev, A., Yelmurzayeva, R., Kamaljanova, T., & Ibragimova, G. (2024). The ambivalence of the implementation of the US Arctic policy: integrating and disintegration factors of the allies. Frontiers in Political Science. doi:10.3389/fpos.2024.1341375.
  • Dietl, R. (2006). In Defence of the West: General Lauris Norstad, NATO Nuclear Forces and Transatlantic Relations 1956–1963. Diplomacy and Statecraft. doi:10.1080/09592290600695334.
  • Fortmann, M., Haglund, D. G., & von Hlatky, S. (2010). INTRODUCTION: France’s ‘return’ to NATO: implications for transatlantic relations. European Security. doi:10.1080/09662839.2010.507762.
  • Haneef, M. A. (2003). Decolonizing Methodologies. American Journal of Islam and Society. doi:10.35632/ajis.v20i3-4.1836.
  • Liamaz, R., & McCarty, T. L. (2003). Revitalizing Indigenous Languages in Homogenising Times. Comparative Education. doi:10.1080/03050060302556.
  • McKercher, A. (2015). The trouble with self-determination: Canada, Soviet colonialism and the United Nations, 1960–1963. The International Journal of Human Rights. doi:10.1080/13642987.2015.1090431.
  • Østerud, Ø., & Hønneland, G. (2017). Geopolitics and International Governance in the Arctic. Arctic Review on Law and Politics. doi:10.23865/arctic.v5.1044.
  • Peng, J., & Wegge, N. (2015). China’s bilateral diplomacy in the Arctic. Polar Geography. doi:10.1080/1088937x.2015.1086445.
  • Smolar, E. G. H. (2011). “A Discordant Note”: NATO and the Greek Junta, 1967–1974. Diplomacy and Statecraft. doi:10.1080/09592296.2011.549745.
  • Tomiak, J. (2017). Contesting the Settler City: Indigenous Self‐Determination, New Urban Reserves, and the Neoliberalization of Colonialism. Antipode. doi:10.1111/anti.12308.
  • Whitman, R. (2004). The European Union and the Atlantic Alliance: The challenge of a new transatlantic agenda. The International Spectator. doi:10.1080/0393272042000259072.
  • Yilmaz, S. (2017). Exploring China’s Arctic Strategy: Opportunities and Challenges. China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies. doi:10.1142/s237774001750004x.
← Prev Next →