Discourse of purchasing Greenland from Denmark has revived again in the United States of America (USA), as soon as Donald Trump begins his second term as president. On January 21, 2025, Trump stated that “Greenland is necessary for U.S. international security”.
Greenland, located in the north of the Atlantic Ocean and mostly covered in ice sheet, is an autonomous territory of Kingdom of Denmark. Although Greenland is geographically connected to continent of North America, it remained attached to the Europe geopolitically. This controversial proposal of Trump, has been drawing attention as one of the great strategic moves of the U.S. and holds a potential to turn a new page on shaping U.S. foreign policy. Although, in existing international relations these kinds of discourses are taken seriously at the beginning, international law and current geopolitical conditions offer important obstacles for implementation of Trump’s proposal.
The United States’ efforts to expand in the Arctic region began with the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867 for 7.2 million dollars. This move was supported by an attempt to balance Britain’s influence in the Pacific after Russia’s defeat in the Crimean War. The annexation of Alaska allowed the U.S. Army to establish a presence in the region, while also expanding Washington’s strategic influence in the Pacific and providing economic benefits. This event became one of the cornerstones of the United States’ expansionist policy in the Arctic region.[1]
Following the purchase of Alaska, the United States’ plans to buy Greenland and Iceland from Denmark were proposed in the 1860s by the 24. U.S. Foreign Affairs Minister William Seward. However, these plans, which were discussed after Denmark’s defeat in the Second Schleswig War, failed due to lack of support from Congress. Nevertheless, the idea of including Greenland into the United States’ strategic goals resurfaced in the 20th century with repeated efforts.[2]
Greenland is a geopolitically significant region due to its geographic location, natural resources, and military infrastructure. Trump’s interest in Greenland was primarily driven by its strategic mineral resources. This approach aligns with the United States’ long-term motivations to increase its security presence in Greenland. Indeed, a project carried out by the U.S. National Science Foundation and aiming to redevelop Greenland’s former mineral infrastructure, over the past two years, demonstrates that these interests are being addressed on both academic and strategic levels. The cryolite reserves on the island play a critical role in military aircraft production and other industrial applications.[3]
During World War II, the United States strengthened its presence in Greenland by constructing military airfields and a radar station. This infrastructure became part of early warning systems against nuclear threats from the Soviet Union during the Cold War years. Additionally, the U.S. built a naval base called Bluie West Seven and enhance security measures in the region to protect the cryolite mine in Greenland. During World War II, 85,000 tons of minerals extracted from the cryolite mine were shipped to aluminum smelting plants in North America. The area now known as Ivittuut has historically been at the center of the United States’ military and economic interests in Greenland.[4]
The great power competition in the Arctic has made Greenland a balancing factor against the growing economic and strategic goals of actors like Russia and China. In particular, China’s “Polar Silk Road” strategy has increased interest in the region, while Russia has strengthened its presence through energy resources and military influence. Trump’s proposal to purchase Greenland aimed to balance the influence of these two major powers and ensure that the United States establishes a lasting presence in the region.
The Polar Silk Road was added to China’s mega-scale infrastructure and connectivity project Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2017 and is characterized by infrastructure investments in economic corridors such as the Northern Sea Route. Also referred to as the “Golden Waterway,” this initiative has sparked significant interest in the extraction of natural resources and the maritime shipping potential of the Arctic region. However, uncertainties remain regarding the role and importance of the Polar Silk Road within China’s Arctic strategy. While Chinese officials have sent mixed signals on this matter, the initiative has been viewed as a framework for cooperation with not only Russia but also with Northeast Asia and Scandinavian countries. Despite this, the position of the Polar Silk Road within China’s overall strategic priorities remains unclear.
In February 2022, just days before the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin met in Beijing to discuss strategic issues, such as the development of the Polar Silk Road. Announced for the first time in 2017, this project was highlighted as one of the potential areas of cooperation between the two countries in the Arctic region and was seen by some as a fundamental geopolitical pillar of the Russia-China partnership. In March 2023, Xi visited Russia again, reaffirming China’s commitment to its strategic partnership with Russia. However, he also stated that the relationship was not “limitless.” While Russia has expressed its willingness to increase China’s presence in the Arctic region, it was seen that the Polar Silk Road has remained in the background of China’s official discourse.[5] This has raised further questions regarding China’s Arctic policy and its long-term strategic approach to the global order.
Trump’s discourses have raised certain questions from an international law perspective. Although Greenland is legally part of the Kingdom of Denmark, it gained broad rights through the autonomy law passed in 1979.[6] While Greenland is still dependent on Denmark in areas such as defence and foreign policy, it has its own internal legal and governance systems. This situation allows Greenland to be considered a community with the right to self-determination. The right to self-determination is a fundamental principle recognized in Article 1(2) of the United Nations (UN) Charter, as well as in Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. This right refers to the freedom of peoples to freely determine their political, economic, social, and cultural status.
Under the framework of this right, the people of Greenland are the sole authority in determining the future of Greenland. In international law, the acquisition of territory has historically occurred through various methods. However, modern international law has restricted these methods and placed them under specific rules:[7] (i) The transfer of territory can occur through an agreement between states. However, such agreements must comply with the right to self-determination, as outlined in Articles 1 and 55 of the UN Charter. Therefore, even if Denmark were to agree to sell Greenland to the U.S., such a transfer could not occur without the consent of the Greenlandic people. (ii) Historically, states have acquired land through discovery and settlement. However, this method is no longer valid under modern international law. Denmark’s establishment of settlements in Greenland in the 19th century, therefore, is not considered territorial acquisition under modern law. (iii) Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force to acquire territory. This principle was also reaffirmed by the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States.
Trump’s statement of applying economic pressure to control Greenland represents a controversial area in international law. Economic pressure is often considered within the scope of the “prohibition of intervention.” The UN General Assembly’s Resolution 2131 (XX) from 1965 prohibits states from interfering in the internal affairs of another state through economic pressure.[8] However, there is debate over whether such resolutions have become customary international law.
Trump’s statements about Greenland, when analysed within the framework of securitization theory, can be understood as a process where defining a region as “necessary” for international security lends legitimacy to extraordinary policies toward that region. The emphasis on Greenland’s strategic value highlights that the island is not just a piece of land, but a critical component in global security balances. Trump’s rhetoric of “necessary for international security” can be seen as a tool for legitimizing extraordinary measures, such as military intervention or diplomatic pressure, on the region. According to Wæver’s concept of securitization, it does not simply define an issue as a security threat; it also creates the right and obligation to intervene in that issue.
Presenting Greenland as an American interest is seen as a significant step for the U.S. in reinforcing its strategic dominance in the region, in comparison to the growing influence of China and Russia. The Arctic region and Greenland offer valuable natural resources and geopolitical advantages. This condition strengthens the U.S.’s goal of increasing its influence in the area. China’s infrastructure investments and Russia’s military presence in the region can be perceived as threats to the U.S., and this threat can be further reinforced through the securitization discourse regarding Greenland. Additionally, the valuable minerals and energy resources in Greenland are focus points of global competition, carrying strategic importance, especially for major players like China and Russia.
In conclusion, Trump’s discourses would not only defends the interests of the U.S. but also would be a part of a security strategy that aims to limit influence of China and Russia in the region. In this context, securitization of Greenland can be regarded as a maneuver that challenges the strategic rivalry between major powers in international relations and the limits of international law. Trump’s rhetoric emerges as a discursive strategy used to reinforce the United States’ leadership as a global power during a period when both global security strategies and international legal norms are being reshaped. By positioning Greenland as a strategic interest, the U.S. aims to assert its dominance in the face of rising global competitors, all while navigating the evolving dynamics of international relations and law.
[1] “History Explains Trump’s Interest in Greenland—And Why Buying It Won’t Be So Easy”, TIME, https://time.com/7208293/buying-greenland-history/, (Date Accessed: 24.01.2025).
[2] Ibid.
[3] “Greenland’s Mineral Heritage in the Trump Era”, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/saleemali/2024/12/26/greenlands-mineral-heritage-in-the-trump-era/, (Date Accessed: 24.01.2025).
[4] Ibid.
[5] “China’s Polar Silk Road: Long Game or Failed Strategy?”, The Arctic Institute, https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/china-polar-silk-road-long-game-failed-strategy/, (Date Accessed: 24.01.2025).
[6] ““You cannot sell parts of a state territory”, LTO, https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/interview-trump-usa-control-greenland-right-to-self-determination-international-law, (Date Accessed: 24.01.2025).
[7] Ibid.
[8] “General Assembly Resolution 2131 (Xx) Of 21 December 1965 Declaration on The Inadmissibility of Intervention in The Domestic Affairs of States and The Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty”, United Nations Library of International Law, https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ga_2131-xx/ga_2131-xx_e.pdf, (Date Accessed: 24.01.2025).
