Qamar Zaman Qaisrani
GREENLAND, the world’s largest island, occupies a unique and often misunderstood position in global geopolitics. Geographically part of the North American continent, it is politically, culturally and historically closer to Europe. As an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland enjoys extensive self-rule, including its own parliament and government, while foreign policy and defense remain under Danish authority. Copenhagen supports the territory with an annual block grant of roughly one billion dollars.
Despite a population of just 57,000 across more than two million square kilometres, Greenland’s strategic importance far exceeds its demographic weight. Nearly 80 per cent of its landmass is ice-covered, beneath which lie significant oil, gas and critical mineral reserves. Its Arctic location has long attracted global powers and returned to the international spotlight in 2019 when then US President Donald Trump proposed purchasing the island from Denmark, revealing deeper geopolitical currents.
The United States has historically acquired territories through purchase, including Louisiana from France in 1803, Florida from Spain in 1819, Alaska from Russia in 1867 and the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. Alaska’s harsh climate, strategic value and resource wealth bear similarities to Greenland and may have influenced Trump’s thinking. However, the post-Second World War international order has made territorial acquisition without popular consent legally and politically untenable. The UN Charter rejects colonial expansion, while Greenlanders have consistently opposed becoming part of the United States. Their right to self-determination therefore makes any proposed purchase effectively void.
Greenland’s political trajectory reinforces this reality. During the Second World War, US forces established a defensive presence on the island with Danish consent after Germany occupied Denmark. Denmark resumed control after the war, granting Greenland Home Rule in 1979 and Self-Rule in 2009, which affirmed its people’s right to determine their future, including independence. Any attempt to alter Greenland’s status by force would violate international law and risk a major NATO crisis, as Greenland, Denmark and the US are all members. It could also embolden Russia and China over Ukraine and Taiwan, severely damage transatlantic ties and further destabilize the global order.
Why, then, did President Trump raise the issue at all? The answer lies less in real estate and more in strategy. The Arctic is emerging as a critical theatre of competition, offering the shortest military routes between North America, Europe and Russia. As climate change accelerates the melting of polar ice, access to rare earth elements, oil, gas, uranium, lithium and cobalt is becoming increasingly feasible. At the same time, Washington seeks to limit the expanding influence of Russia and China in the region while encouraging its European allies, particularly Denmark, to shoulder greater defense responsibilities.
Regardless of how the Greenland debate evolves, one broader conclusion is unavoidable. Competition among major powers over strategic space and economic resources is intensifying. New alignments are forming and the coming decade is likely to witness significant shifts in the global balance of power. In this changing landscape, weaker states, economically and militarily, will find the challenge of safeguarding their sovereignty more daunting than ever.
For Pakistan and other strategically located developing states, the Greenland debate carries an important lesson: geography can be both an asset and a vulnerability. As great-power competition intensifies over strategic locations, resources and trade routes, sovereignty will increasingly depend not only on international law but also on economic resilience, diplomatic balance and national capacity.
—The writer is a civil seasonal servant with extensive experience in public administration and governance.
