Acquiring Greenland Is More Than a Terrible Idea | Opinion

The notion of a U.S. takeover of Greenland is both strategically misguided and antithetical to the principles of sovereignty that underpin the international order. Greenland's hard-fought autonomy from Denmark, achieved in 2009, reflects the determination of its people to control their future. Any attempt to undermine this progress would provoke significant internal resistance, destabilize the Arctic region, and erode the United States' global standing.

Greenland's evolution toward greater self-governance underscores its distinct cultural and political identity. While it remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland exercises substantial autonomy over its domestic affairs, with Copenhagen retaining control over foreign policy and defense. This arrangement respects the aspirations of Greenlanders, who have consistently prioritized self-determination and cultural preservation.

Greenlanders have long expressed a desire for eventual independence. However, such aspirations hinge on economic sustainability and institutional development—objectives that external interference, particularly military action, would severely hinder. By disrupting this trajectory, the United States would not only face local opposition but also risk international condemnation.

An invasion of Greenland would provoke formidable internal opposition, rooted in the Greenlandic people's deep connection to their land and cultural heritage. Any military intervention would be perceived not only as an affront to their autonomy, but as a broader act of imperialism. Such resistance, amplified by a global outcry, would obstruct any strategic objectives the United States might pursue in the Arctic, transforming potential opportunities into costly liabilities. Donald Trump said it's about "national security and freedom throughout the world." However, Jakob Kløve Keiding, senior consultant at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, stated it's more about Greenland's critical mineral deposits.

The Arctic's geopolitical importance has surged as climate change reshapes the region's accessibility. New shipping lanes, untapped natural resources, and its role as a climate bellwether have made the Arctic a strategic focal point. Greenland, strategically positioned between North America and Europe, is central to this evolving landscape. However, the hypothetical scenario of an invasion would galvanize Greenland's population and its international allies into a unified front, risking a swift and diplomatically disastrous conflict that would undermine U.S. credibility.

Beyond the immediate fallout, such an action would destabilize the Arctic's delicate governance structures. Greenland's integral role in Arctic governance highlights its importance as a cooperative partner in maintaining regional stability. Military aggression would disrupt these frameworks, intensify tensions with Arctic stakeholders like Russia and China, and undermine broader efforts to promote a rules-based order in the region—a core U.S. strategic interest.

The legal and moral implications of such a move are equally severe. The United States' stature as a global advocate for sovereignty and self-determination is grounded in its adherence to international norms. An invasion of Greenland would flagrantly violate the United Nations Charter's prohibition on the use of force against territorial integrity or political independence. This breach would not only erode the U.S.' moral authority but provide adversaries with a compelling narrative to question its commitment to international law.

Greenland's autonomy is emblematic of a broader global trend toward respecting the self-determination of smaller nations and regions. Threatening this autonomy would damage America's relationships with allies and partners who value multilateralism and shared governance. Moreover, it would alienate Greenland's population, transforming a potential ally into a source of enduring friction.

A more constructive path lies in respecting Greenland's autonomy and leveraging its strategic importance through collaboration. By investing in Greenland's sustainable development, infrastructure, and climate resilience, the United States can strengthen its partnerships while upholding its values. Such an approach would reinforce America's leadership in the Arctic and demonstrate its commitment to principled engagement in a rapidly changing world.

Rather than contemplating military action, the United States should prioritize building constructive partnerships with Greenland. These efforts would also align with broader strategic goals of sustainable development and regional stability.

The Arctic Council provides a critical platform for addressing shared challenges in the region. By leveraging this forum, the United States can work alongside Greenland, Denmark, and other Arctic nations to promote a cooperative and stable Arctic governance framework. Such an approach would ensure that U.S. interests align with the aspirations of the Greenlandic people and the broader international community.

The proposition of the U.S. acquiring Greenland is not only unnecessary but also fundamentally counterproductive. Respecting Greenland's autonomy and fostering partnerships grounded in mutual respect and shared interests would advance U.S. strategic objectives far more effectively. By upholding international norms and championing the principles of self-determination, the United States can reinforce its global leadership while ensuring stability in the Arctic. In an era where multilateral cooperation is paramount, leading through partnership rather than confrontation is the only viable path forward.

Rodrigo Aguilar Benignos is an international analyst, attorney, and member of the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations.

The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.