Opinion Greenlanders are not chess pieces. Any attempt to ‘buy’ or ‘occupy’ Greenland revives memories of imperial arrogance
Dismissing US interest in Greenland as mere bravado is to miss the tectonic shift underway in geopolitics. Power politics never disappeared; it simply went into hibernation. The Arctic thaw has awakened it
Beneath Greenland’s ice sheets lie undiscovered rare earth elements, uranium, oil, and natural gas. From smartphones to fighter jets, rare earths power everything. Why does the United States want Greenland? At first glance, the question sounds absurd. A frozen island with people numbered in the thousands hardly seems to be the prize of the 21st century. Yet scratch the surface, and Greenland emerges not as a remote periphery, but as a strategic pole of geopolitics.
Starting with the Arctic itself, for centuries, the region attracted little strategic interest simply because of its hostile climatic conditions. Today, however, climate change and receding ice are transforming this once-inaccessible space. Apart from creating the possibility for extraction of previously untapped reserves of oil, gas, and critical minerals, the region has also been brought firmly into contemporary strategic calculations, due to the opening up of shipping routes, seabeds, and corridors.
The Northern Sea Route and potential transpolar passages can lessen travel time between Asia, Europe, and North America like never before. If the Arctic becomes the new global highway, whoever shapes its rules, monitors its routes, and secures its chokepoints will hold enormous leverage. Situated between the North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean, Greenland commands one of the world’s most consequential maritime gateways.
Then there is another hard security angle. Greenland hosts the Pituffik Space Base (formerly known as the Thule Air Base), a key US missile early-warning and space surveillance system. As traditional deterrence models crumble due to less response time to hypersonic weapons, early detection becomes essential. Missiles flying over the polar region take relatively less time to reach North America than any other trajectory. Many in the Trump administration believe that with Greenland, the US can see early, react quicker, and deter more credibly.
But the story does not end with maritime routes, missiles, and radars. Beneath Greenland’s ice sheets lie undiscovered rare earth elements, uranium, oil, and natural gas. From smartphones to fighter jets, rare earths power everything. But global supply chains are concentrated and sometimes weaponised. China is tightening its grip on critical minerals and Russia is already controlling a major part of the Arctic with icebreakers and military bases. The US thus sees Greenland as a hedge against dependency and vulnerability.
There is also a quiet but powerful logic of denial. To benefit from Greenland in the traditional sense, Washington does not need to “own” it. The US can work in tandem to ensure that its perceived adversaries do not dominate it. Apart from calling itself a “Near-Arctic” state, China has shown deep interest in Greenlandic airports, infrastructure, and mining projects, something which the US sees as a clear threat. In the language of geopolitics, the US would want to prevent strategic encirclement and block footholds before they harden into facts on the ground. If not expansion, the US may settle for preventing strategic erosion.
Yet, the American interest in Greenland is not purely geopolitics. It is also symbolic. Since World War II, the US has tried to position itself as an Arctic power without a substantial foothold in the Arctic. Greenland promises to bridge that gap. With Greenland, the US will firmly anchor in the High North. It may reinforce Washington’s role within NATO and strengthen transatlantic security at a time when European security architecture faces internal and external stress. The US plans to support Greenland’s development economically, technologically, and socially to project an image of partnership rather than domination. History prefers to view such philanthropic gestures as instruments of domination.
Amid such claims and justifications comes the ethical and political discomfort. Legally, Greenland is not a terra nullius waiting to be claimed, nor a negotiable real estate asset. It is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Its status is firmly anchored in international law. Under the 1979 Home Rule Act and, more decisively, the 2009 Self-Government Act, Greenland gained extensive autonomy over its internal affairs. This includes natural resources, environment, fisheries, and taxation. Most importantly, the Act explicitly recognises the Greenlandic people as a distinct people with the right to self-determination under international law.
Therefore, any change in Greenland’s status, including merger or independence, can occur only through the will of Greenlanders themselves. Moreover, Greenlanders are not chess pieces, and Denmark’s sovereignty cannot be overlooked. Any attempt to “buy” or “occupy” Greenland revives memories of imperial arrogance, which the US will find very difficult to justify. At the same time, dismissing US interest in Greenland as mere bravado is to miss the tectonic shift underway in geopolitics. Power politics never disappeared; it simply went into hibernation. The Arctic thaw has awakened it.
Sovereignty, self-government, and local consent are not peripheral issues, but central to Greenland’s future, as they should be for any state. So, the important question, therefore, is not why Washington pays attention to Greenland, but rather how such attention will be managed within the broader legal frameworks, alliances, and the consent of the Greenlandic people themselves.
The writer is assistant professor, Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Share
