Geopolitical Security Strategy Or Imperialistic Adventurism

"US will do something on Greenland whether they like it or not. Because if we don't do it Russia or China will take over Greenland and we are not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor", Donald Trump.

The Story
United States of America (US) leader, President Donald Trump suggested that US should take ownership of Greenland. Denmark pushed back saying that though Greenland is a semi-autonomous state, Greenland still legitimately belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark. And now any move against Greenland/ Denmark is a move against North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), since Denmark is a member of NATO. Such a move would shatter NATO alliance, violate international law and destabilize arctic region.

Greenland
Geographically connected to North America and politically linked to Europe, Greenland (Nuuk) is the largest island in the world known for its vast ice cap and low population density. It has an estimated population of 56 000. Greenland is not fully independent but a self governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark manages Greenland's defense and foreign policy, while Greenland manages internal affairs like education and taxation.

Greenland (Nuuk) and Denmark (Copenhagen) are separated by a distance of an estimated 3532 km between their capitals. Despite such significant distance, Greenland has been associated with Denmark politically and culturally for a millennium.Greenland was a Danish colony until 1953, when it was redefined as a district of Denmark. In addition to its own local government, Greenland has two representatives in the Danish Parliament, the "Folketing"

Greenland; The Name
Eighty (80%) of Greenland is covered in ice, snow and glaciers, which is mostly white.So how come the name “Greenland” when it’s not really green but actually white? This Arctic nation actually got its name from Erik The Red (from Iceland), an Icelandic murderer or manslaughter who was exiled to the island. He called it “Greenland” in the hope that the name would attract settlers to come and settle. However, scientist believe Greenland was actually quite green more than 2.5 million years ago. A new study reveals that ancient dirt was cryogenically frozen for millions of years underneath about 2 miles of ice.

Why Greenland Under Denmark?
The long history of Danish presence in Greenland dates back to Erik the Red, a Norse Viking who was banished from Iceland for murder or manslaughter and sought a new future in the island (Greenland) around the end of the *10th century*. It is believed that the oldest flag in the world,the Danish flag has been flying in Greenland since around 1219. Even though when Viking settlements vanished, around the early 18th century, that is, in 1721 a Danish missionary Hans Egede arrived, establishing permanent Danish-Norwegian settlements for trade and christianization, marking the start of renewed Danish control in modern history. In the period of Napoleonic wars in Europe, at the Union & Treaty of Kiel (1814) Denmark ceded mainland Norway to Sweden but retained Greenland (along with Iceland & Faroe Islands).

In 1916 Denmark’s rights to Greenland were confirmed or solidified by the US's Lansing Declaration of 1916, as part of an American deal that facilitated the US purchase of the Danish West Indies.

Lansing Declaration On Danish Sovereignty Over Greenland, 1916

On 4th August 1916, the American government issued a declaration to the Danish government that it would not raise objections if Denmark extended its interests in Greenland to include the entire island.This declaration of 1916, known as the Lansing Declaration paved the way for recognition of Danish sovereignty over Greenland by other nations.The declaration, which was an appendix to a sales contract of the Danish West Indies to US, was signed by the then American foreign minister Robert Lansing.The Declaration reads;

In proceeding this day to the signature of the Convention respecting the cession of the Danish West-Indian Islands to the United States of America, the undersigned Secretary of State of the United States of America, duly authorized by his Government, has the honor to declare that the Government of the United States of America will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.

Robert Lansing, New York, August 4, 1916.
The 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement
The 1951 Defence of Greenland Treaty is a binding agreement between Denmark and the United States. The 1951 Treaty grants the US broad military rights in Greenland, including rent-free bases like Pituffik.It allows unrestricted movement for defence purposes and remains active today. It also allows the US to keep its military bases in Greenland, and to establish new bases or "defense areas" if deemed necessary by NATO. Under Article II, the US has the right to establish and operate "defence areas" free from rent or taxation. This allows Washington to build and maintain military infrastructure without direct interference from Danish authorities. The treaty authorised the construction of Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), located 1,200 km north of the Arctic Circle.The treaty has no fixed expiration date and is extremely difficult to terminate unilaterally. It remains in force for the duration of the North Atlantic Treaty, effectively granting the US strategic control over Greenland for as long as NATO exists.

In 1953, Greenland was incorporated into Denmark and given two (2) seats in the Danish or Denmark parliament. In 1979, Greenland achieved "Home Rule' resulting in the formation of Greenlandic parliament. In 2009, Greenland gained "self-rule" through the passage of a law that included a ‘blueprint’ for seeking independence. According to the 2009 self- rule status, it was stated that the decision to go for independence from Denmark would now rest with the Greenlandic people (people of Greenland).

In light of the two above agreements , the Lansing Declaration of 1916 and the Greenland Defense Agreement of 1951, what President Trump is doing is really mindboggling. The Lansing Declaration signed by US itself paved the way for recognition of Danish sovereignty over Greenland by other nations, but now Trump is contradicting that declaration, which is in fact part and parcel of international law, the basis why other world recognised and still recognize Denmark sovereignty over Greenland.

The Greenland Defense Agreement of 1951, gives US a "blank cheque" over Greenland in as far as military and security investment/s is concerned. In other words, US has Greenland and the question is why President Trump wants to annex what US has already has in principle? In the name of national security, international security? when already the 1951 Defense Agreement allows US to operate military bases, install military and security hardware and infrastructure US deems fit for its national or international security even without objection from Denmark. So why the talk of annexing Greenland?

Kauffman Offers US "Base rights"
It was during the Second World War(1939-45) that on April 9, 1940, Germany under Hitler occupied Denmark, putting Greenland in a peculiar position.This became a source of worry to the US, fearing that Germany could take Greenland and use Greenland's geography against US. However, when the then Danish ambassador to the US, Henrik Kauffmann, took the rather unusual step of proposing himself as the true representative of free Denmark (not Germany occupied Denmark), cutting bonds with the occupied Danish country. Kauffmann offered the US, base rights in Greenland for the duration of the war. US favourably responded to this, marking the genesis of US's post-1945 extensive interests in Greenland.

Indeed, after the Second World War, a liberated Denmark honored Kauffman’s commitments, and from 1949, the US and Denmark became strategic allies through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).Thus, during the Cold War and even decades later after the Cold War, the US safeguarded its security interests in Greenland. How?, by using Greenland as US base for tracking Russian missiles, bomber planes, and nuclear-armed submarines. This became the basis for the “Greenland card” in US-Danish relations.Stemming from the notion that "base rights" in Greenland constituted a vital contribution from Denmark and Greenland to the US and NATO against Western enemies during and after Cold War.

From Strategic Ally To Bad Ally
Denmark through Greenland used to be a vital strategic ally for the US during and after Cold War, but all that was to change in the context of Donald Trump's "America First Policy ".The US had now to push its "free-riding" European allies like Denmark to do more on every front (including security front). Trump voiced out that Washington DC wont be satisfied anymore with having a free hand in Greenland. Instead, Denmark was now a "bad ally" for not taking responsibility for US security concerning Greenland. According toTrump’s narrative, this perceived Danish lapse justified a US takeover of Greenland in its entirety.Trump even went so far as to refuse to rule out the use of military force. Other reasons, voiced by Trump, included securing mineral wealth, especially rare earth minerals, as well as a more general imperial ambition to make the US greater through territorial expansion.

History Always Repeats Itself
Though not yet official position, there is talk of Trump buying land from Greenland and possibly paying money to Greenland citizens ranging from US$10 000 to US$100 000 per individual citizen. It needs to be noted that US buying land, territories is business as usual. One needs to note that present US map as we know it today was bought on a cheque book. In 1803, Thomas Jefferson the then US President bought Louisiana from France. In 1867 , US bought Alaska from Russia. A brain child idea of the then US Secretary of State , William Seward. During that era Alaska was described by observers and commentators as "Seward's folly".. because they thought it was hopeless froze wasteland. But they were wrong because that waste frozen wasteland has become a goldmine of oil and strategic power.Now Trump wants Greenland, which is 80% snow, offcourse, he insists it's about security, national and international world security, so he argues. Ironically, in 1917, US bought Virginia Islands from the same Denmark ...yes, US has already bought land from Denmark before. So when now, *in 2026* Trump talks of buying Greenland, Trump is not inventing anything new in US history, he is simply following a cheque book which is almost 200 years old.

US's Long History Of Vested Interests In Greenland

In 1867, after purchasing Alaska from Russia William Seward, the then, US Secretary of State, floated the idea of buying Greenland from Iceland and Denmark. It never materialized. In 1910, US ambassador suggested to Denmark that Denmark give up Greenland to US, in exchange for island in the Philippines. Again, this did not happen. In 1946 after the end of the Second World War, the then US President, Harry Truman, made a secret bid offering US$100 million in gold to a war torn Denmark for Greenland. Denmark turned down the offer. The bid a secret that time, was made public by Danish newspaper in 1991 when the documents were declassified (two decades earlier), that is in the 1970s. What is the difference between Truman in 1946 and Trump in 2026, is the tone. Truman's offer to buy Greenland, 80 years ago in 1946 was secretive and polite. Fast forward later, that is, now 2026,Trump's tone is bullying and sounds more hostile like a corporate take- over.

Not About Security
Trump's argument that the US need Greenland for security reasons does not hold water. In 1951 Denmark and the US signed a treaty allowing the US to construct bases in Greenland like the Thule Air Base. Thousands of American troops arrived during the Cold War. Seventeen (17) bases were constructed.The treaty still stands. After the Cold War, most of the bases were closed and most of the American soldiers went home. Not because they were forced to by Denmark (or Greenland which had now become a part of the treaty).The American soldiers went home because America wanted to save money.

If Trump wants to build new bases and send more troops to Greenland, all he has to do is ask. Though the treaty has been updated, it still allows for US presence in Greenland should Greenland and Denmark agree. As good allies, Greenland and Denmark would probably say yes, we have done so before and we can do it again now.

And the question is why the threatening and bullying tactics against allies and former allies Trump is doing ? Certainly President Trump can get what he wants through *

respectful diplomacy. Also, the Russian and Chinese ships that Trump says are “all over the place ” in Greenland are not there. Observers point out that, there are relatively few ships in and around Greenland of any kind. The increasing Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic is in Russian waters - on the other side of the North Pole.

Psychological Reason
Some have been perplexed by Donald Trump's idea of even annexing Greenland by force in the name of "national security" for US or "international security" for the world. US through past treaties with Denmark has been allowed to have as many military bases, at one point seventeen (17) in Greenland, and as many soldiers as US wants and at one point totalling ten thousands (10 000) soldiers. US has even been allowed "mineral rights". In other words, US has Greenland. But the troubling question is why is Trump trying to seize or take what it already has in terms of military bases, soldiers, mineral rights etc.

Some have raised a very interesting observation to this whole Trump's Greenland threat of "takeover". As a former real estate business man, Trump's mindset is still stuck in real estate worldview. They argue, the real reason is nothing but "psychological," right there in President Trump's real estate developer mindset and worldview. The argument goes that Donald Trump's interest in getting Greenland stems from his real estate developer's simplistic view of global politics where complex geopolitical dynamics are reduced to transactional deal making. Such argument identifies key aspects stemming from Trump's real estate mindset on Greenland :

a) views Greenland as a real estate opportunity.

b) believes ownership is "psychologically" important for success.

c) Sees Greenland as a strategic location for national security.

d) Unwilling to consider alternative solutions, such as leasing or partnerships.

Such real estate mindset on global politics is clearly laid bare by Trump's speech when he was quoted saying;

"Countries have to have ownership and you defend ownership, you don't defend leases. And we'll have to defend Greenland," Donald Trump.

So the logic goes, according to Trump, to defend Greenland from Russia and China, US has to own Greenland, otherwise US won't defend Greenland and according to Trump, Denmark has absolutely no capacity to do so.

If Not About Security, Its About What?

Greenland- "the Panama Canal Of The 21st Century"

A land that looks empty, frozen & far away is Greenland. Greenland may appear quite, isolated and a useless wasteland on a map, but Greenland occupies one of the most important and strategic positions on earth. Untapped mineral resources lie beneath the ice which covers most of Greenland, rare earth metals in particular. Lying between North America and Europe, right at the gateway to Arctic ocean and region. Whoever, controls Greenland, controls Arctic region. And that is leverage in terms of global trade, millitary dominance and geopolitical advantages. Greenland is described as the "Panama Canal" of the 21st Century. Whoever controls Greenland controls gateway to Arctic region. And this comes with lots of geopolitical and military advantages and benefits. Currently , major powers are locked in a silent battle for influence over the region.

Millitary Importance
Greenland is located right at the gateway of arctic ocean, the shortest flight path of missiles, bombers, satellites between US, Russia and China. And this matters in this nuclear age .This is the reason why for decades and up to now US operates millitary base in Greenland. This is for monitoring airspace, tracking missiles, observing the space and controlling arctic airspace.

Breaking China chokehold on future of technology

Currently, China controls 90% processing of rare earth metals. For iphones, electrical vehicle, batteries, fighter jets, advanced missiles. If China cuts supply even US military and economy will grind to a halt. But Greenland has largest reserves of untapped rare earth metals. Getting Greenland is tantamount to breaking China chokehold on control of future technology.

New Trade Routes... Influence & Control Of Global Trade

Global warming and climate is a tragedy but for shipping companies it's an opportunity to open up new routes. These new routes cut by 40% travel time between Asia and Europe.These new routes have the potential of reshaping global trade decades ahead. Whoever controls or has influence over these routes has a strategic advantage in future global trade logistics and supply chains.

US Imperial Adventurism; A Threat To World Peace

US's imperial adventurism in the Greenland is putting the peace of Europe and the whole world in jeopardy. Against the time held belief and narrative, the biggest threat to Western democracy is not coming from a Russian missile, but from Trump's adventurism and reckless rhetoric over Greenland. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said that should US forcefully acquire Greenland, this could result in dissolution of NATO. Stephen Miller, key aide to Donald Trump has said,

"no country will fight against America over Greenland "

This does not sound like diplomacy, but more of an ultimatum.This is more like a sound of western alliance cracking from the inside, really unbelievable to keen observers of post 1945 global politics. US and Europe on the opposite side of a conflict. Why? just because of a frozen island with less than 60 000 people.

America First Doctrine versus Political & Military Unity of Europe

On one side, is a peaceful, democratic European nation of Denmark which views itself as guardians of Greenland. Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen is defending the sovereignty of Greenland from a position of deep fear and pride, "sovereignity is not for sell". She knows Denmark cannot fight US, but she is using the only weapon she has, political & military unity of Europe (NATO) against seemingly US imperial tendencies. On the other side is US President operating under the "America first doctrine". Tough talking which some describe as reckless promising to get Greenland the "easy way" or the "hard way" whether they like it or not. What will happen should US use force to annex Greenland? Will NATO revoke Article 5? "attack on one is attack on all "....now that attack is coming from one of its own member, (US).

Polling results in Greenland have shown that only 6% want US takeover but the majority of Greenlanders are against US takeover,what they want is independence, but not now, eventually, reports, Nic Robertson , CNN diplomatic editor.

Denmark Foreign Minister pointed out that there is need to "bring the rhetoric down, we need to tone down". But Danish prime minister said should US take Greenland by force, that's the end of NATO since EU is standing lockstep behind Denmark and Greenland.

Trump insists US needs Greenland for national and international security in the Arctic circle. But Denmark said US can have as many as military bases as it wants in Greenland... so is it really about security? It is not about security but its about imperial expansion for economic and political reasons.

"we only have a limited amount of resources. A limited amount of land. We need a lot of energy to go to the next phase of industrial revolution which is AI. And to be competitive we need those energy sources", Angie Wong, Miami Republican CommitteeWoman.

This is the reason driving Trump actions over Greenland. But such an imperial drive is disregarding international law, no upholding for rights of smaller nations,the Greenland, the Denmark etc

"US will do something on Greenland whether they like it or not. Because if we don't do it Russia or China will take over Greenland and we are not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor", Donald Trump

further stating that,
" I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don't do it the easy way, we are going to do it the hard way", Donald Trump.

Here, Trump is sending an imperial message that,

"What US wants is, well, good for the rest of the world.

And also,
What US wants goes. Might is right"
This gives rise to the question on international law.The so called international law does it apply to all nations great and small. One of the sources of international law is treaties or agreements. US is signatory of the Lansing agreement 1916, Greenland defense treaty 1951. The former is the basis of Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland,the later is in essence, a blank cheque for US's military and security investments in Greenland.So the question is why disregard sovereignty of Denmark over Greenland and why talk of annexing Greenland for national and international security, when already US has a "blank cheque" over security and military investments in Greenland. All such treaties and agreements ensure independence and safety of Greenland from invasion or attack. But here we are, President Trump threatening to annex Greenland.

Conclusion
On one hand, President of US, Donald Trump has said it repeatedly that US needs Greenland for it's "national and international security" and Trump appears determined to get it (Greenland) at any cost. Possibly, increase of Russian and Chinese ships on the shores of Greenland is the reason why, because Washington DC views presence of Russian and Chinese ships as US "security threat". On the other hand, response from Denmark and Greenland has been firm and clear. .. "Greenland island belongs to its people and cannot be sold or annexed even under the banner of international security" All this drama, Trump threatening to annexe Greenland leaves us with serious questions on the future of our world. Firstly, do we live in a world were the strong do what they want and the weak must suffer what they must? Secondly, does international law apply to all nations of this world? Thirdly, does US in its quest to defeat Russia and China has the right to absorb Greenland or any other territory for that matter for the greater good of so called western or American security? Fourthly, what gurantee is there for smaller nations that there are safe when there are caught in between geopolitical fights of greater powers? Lastly, is the principle of sovereignty worth than any strategic advantage ?

F. Madondo (African Teacher) fortmada123@gmail.com

   Comments0