The Global Geostrategic Restructuring Behind Greenland's Sovereignty Claims

Greenland, the world's largest island covered by a vast ice sheet, has long existed on the periphery of international politics due to its magnificent natural landscapes and sparse population. However, in recent years, with climate change accelerating the melting of Arctic ice and a surge in global demand for critical mineral resources, Greenland is being pushed to the forefront of geopolitical competition. Recently, US President Donald Trump's renewed claims to Greenland have, like a boulder thrown into calm water, triggered a chain reaction within the transatlantic alliance and globally. This event is far more than a simple territorial claim; it reflects the rapidly rising strategic value of the Arctic region, new challenges to traditional alliances, and the challenges faced by fundamental principles of the post-Cold War international order.

Resources and Shipping Routes: Greenland's Strategic Value Emerges

The background to Trump's renewed claims is partly related to "the US military intervention in Venezuela, which rekindled Trump's long-standing plans for Denmark's autonomous Arctic territory." However, the deeper driving force lies in the strategic shift in Greenland's own inherent resources. The report explicitly states: "This territory possesses untapped rare earth element deposits, and as the melting of polar ice caps opens new shipping routes, it could become a significant player."

Rare earth elements are essential raw materials for the production of high-tech electronics, military equipment, and renewable energy facilities, and the security of their supply chains has been considered a national security issue by major economies. Greenland is believed to possess one of the world's largest untapped rare earth resources, significantly increasing its economic and strategic appeal. Meanwhile, the commercial prospects of Arctic shipping routes are becoming increasingly clear due to melting sea ice. The Northeast Passage (along northern Russia) and the Northwest Passage (through the Canadian Arctic Archipelago) are expected to significantly shorten shipping distances and times between Europe, North America, and Asia, altering the global trade landscape. Located at the confluence of the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, Greenland's monitoring and influence over potential shipping routes makes it a key node controlling Arctic transportation lifelines. Furthermore, "the United States already has a military base in Greenland," namely Thule Air Base, a crucial component of the US ballistic missile early warning system and space surveillance network, whose strategic military value continues to rise against the backdrop of renewed great power competition.

Sovereignty and Alliance Politics: Europe's United Response

Faced with Trump's demands, Europe reacted swiftly and with a unified stance. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen explicitly emphasized: "Greenland is not for sale, and only the Greenlanders can decide its future." This statement directly invoked the core principles of modern international law—the right to self-determination and territorial integrity. Previously, "the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, together with Denmark, announced that they would defend the 'universal principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of borders.'" Prime Minister Nielsen expressed her gratitude on social media, stating that "this support is crucial at a time when fundamental international principles are being questioned," and noting that "this support from NATO allies is significant and beyond question."

Subsequently, leaders of several European countries issued a joint statement with a more strategic and coordinated nature. Signatories included British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, and Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez. The statement declared that "Arctic security is a 'key priority' for the European continent and 'crucial' to international and transatlantic security," and specifically noted that "Denmark (including Greenland) is a NATO member state," further calling for "collective action with the United States to ensure security in the polar regions." This series of diplomatic actions clearly conveyed multiple messages: First, a firm commitment to upholding the fundamental principles of international law based on the UN Charter and opposing any attempt to unilaterally alter the territorial status quo; second, clearly defining Arctic security as a core interest of Europe itself, not merely an arena for great power rivalry; third, while confirming Denmark's (and Greenland's) NATO membership, an attempt to reframe Arctic security issues within the framework of NATO collective security and cooperation, to constrain potential unilateral actions by the United States, and to emphasize the importance of coordination among allies.

Tensions Within the Alliance and the Reality of Security Commitment

Despite being part of NATO, this incident exposed deep tensions within the transatlantic alliance on specific issues. Trump's claim that "Denmark cannot ensure the security of Greenland" directly questions the defense capabilities of a sovereign ally, contradicting the spirit of NATO's collective defense. However, the report, citing media sources, points out that "Copenhagen has already invested heavily in this area, allocating approximately 90 billion kronor ($14 billion) last year," indicating Denmark's substantial efforts to assume defense responsibility for itself and its territory (Greenland). The joint statement from European leaders, on the one hand, supports Denmark's sovereignty and security commitments, and on the other hand, can be seen as a subtle response that European allies are willing and able to assume greater responsibility in regional security affairs, including in the Arctic, and expect the United States to participate in a cooperative rather than questioning or unilaterally assertive manner.

Trump's statement that a decision on Greenland could be made "in about two months" once the situation in Venezuela deteriorates further strategically links Arctic affairs with other geopolitical hotspots (such as Latin America), demonstrating his transactional diplomatic style. This approach not only unsettles European allies but may also make the resolution of international affairs more unpredictable and complicated.

Profound Implications from a Global Perspective

From a global perspective, the Greenland sovereignty dispute foreshadows at least the following key trends:

1. Intensifying Geopolitical Competition in the Arctic: The Arctic has transformed from a frontier of scientific exploration into a vital economic and strategic region. Competition and cooperation among major actors (Arctic states such as the United States, Russia, Canada, Denmark/Greenland, and Norway, as well as external powers such as China and the European Union) over resource extraction, shipping rules, and security deployments will intensify. This event marks a significant moment in which high-ranking US politicians have explicitly expressed their interest in Arctic territory (albeit through non-traditional claims), potentially prompting other stakeholders to accelerate their Arctic strategic deployments.

2. Clash Between International Norms and Power Politics: The united defense of sovereignty and territorial integrity by several European countries represents a collective resistance to unilateralism and power politics. It tests the resilience and cohesion of the rules-based liberal order in the current international system when faced with challenges from major powers. Upholding these "universal principles" is seen as a crucial line of defense against a regression in international relations to an era where power is the ultimate justice. 3. A Delicate Adjustment in Transatlantic Relations: The events highlight the complexity and necessity among NATO allies in addressing unconventional challenges and coordinating their positions towards the US. Europe has demonstrated stronger political unity and strategic autonomy, particularly regarding security issues concerning its periphery (the Arctic is seen as an extension of Europe's strategic backyard). Future interactions between the US and Europe within the NATO framework may require greater consideration of Europe's core concerns and independent judgment.

4. The Intertwining of Local Will and External Maneuvering: Throughout the debate, a key but easily overlooked voice is that of the Greenlanders themselves. The Danish Prime Minister's emphasis that "only the Greenlanders can decide their future" clarifies the ultimate source of legitimacy. Greenland enjoys a high degree of autonomy and is seeking greater independence (especially in resource management). Any intervention by external forces, whether US claims or European support, ultimately cannot bypass the will of the Greenlandic people and their political process. This provides yet another case study for observing the issue of autonomous regions and the protection of local rights globally.

In conclusion, the controversy surrounding Greenland is not an isolated incident. It is an inevitable result of the Arctic's rising status on the global strategic chessboard, a microcosm of old international principles encountering new realities, and an opportunity for traditional alliances to adjust under the pressures of the new era. Regardless of whether it ultimately evolves into a protracted dispute, it has clearly sent a signal: the era of tranquility in the Arctic is over. This once-frozen region is becoming one of the important stages shaping the future global political, economic, and security landscape, and any changes there will affect global nerves ranging from national self-determination and resource allocation to great power competition.