0
0
Since the turn of the new year, the United States has largely defied international protocol by aggressively threatening an acquisition of Greenland through various means, marking a rapid and unprecedented escalation of tensions within its alliance block of NATO. This follows the Trump administration’s increasingly prioritized goal of annexing the island from Denmark, largely in the face of objections from Greenlanders, international actors, and American citizens themselves. However, President Trump has displayed his willingness to defy norms to achieve objectives throughout his time in office, such as the recent extradition of former Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, setting a precedent of international defiance and creating uncertainty regarding Greenland’s future. This article will examine the economic and strategic implications of a potential American acquisition of Greenland, as well as the consequences of American expansionism for the future of the global order.
Economic and Security Incentives
Although President Trump claims that the acquisition of Greenland is imperative for “national security,” Washington’s defenses have been marred by suspicions that the rationale is a facade for financial gain. Greenland possesses large deposits of petroleum, raw materials, and rare earth metals, the latter of which the U.S. currently lacks supply chains compared to its Chinese competitors. The mineral and energy assets on Greenland have been estimated to be worth up to four trillion American dollars, assuming current restrictions are removed following U.S. acquisition. Furthermore, despite Trump’s repeated denial of many principles of climate change, the increased accessibility of these resources from melting permafrost positions Greenland as a significant economic opportunity for the United States in its economic rivalry with China. As the island’s ice cap recedes, American miners and drillers would be able to extract more and more of its total resources, creating long-term supply stability in numerous key markets.
Regarding Greenland’s military function, the U.S. would likely not gain a substantial advantage from annexing the island, as existing mechanisms already allow for liberal operations by American forces. The 1951 Defense of Greenland agreement allowed Washington to undertake major expansions in its military operations on the island, with the Pituffik Space Base being manned by over 10,000 U.S. Army personnel at the height of the Cold War. In the tense environment, the U.S. constructed over 50 military installations, with additional plans for nuclear launch sites and extensive tunnel systems. If President Trump’s concerns were truly rooted in security threats posed by Russia and China, he would be able to reopen closed military installations and dispatch troops almost immediately, without ever needing to control Greenland officially, creating ambiguity over whether his actions are rooted in security or aggression.
Potential International Reactions: Conformity to Defiance?
U.S. actions regarding Greenland have elicited negative reactions from much of the international community, including the White House’s own allies. Despite cancelling the planned tariffs on NATO members who have supplied troops to Greenland at the annual World Economic Forum on January 21st, President Trump also doubled down on his desire to acquire Greenland, claiming he had reached a “framework of a future deal” to procure the island. Mr. Trump declared that the European states of NATO should not block U.S. expansionism, stating that “[Greenland is] a very small ask compared to what we have given [NATO] for many, many decades”, while also expressing his belief that Europe was taking a downturn in terms of power. Although these actions were met with some acceptance and relief by European allies, skepticism remains regarding the incompleteness of talks and Greenland’s exclusion from initial negotiations.
In terms of likely actions regarding NATO in the near future, the current status quo is likely to persist. President Trump’s view of European states receiving the advantageous end of the bargain in the maintenance of NATO is inevitable, as hegemonic states are the providers of public goods in international relations theory. For their regimes to be seen as legitimate, the dominant state in the international order must incentivize other states to view them as such, often through provisions such as economic or defense benefits. Thus, the security and defense guarantees provided by the United States to NATO are, in reality, traded in exchange for the loyalty of NATO members to the American-led world order and institutions. This creates an equilibrium that is unlikely to be expeditiously unraveled, even in the face of President Trump’s recent threats. Despite this broader steadiness, as the views of the member states currently stand, America is still at odds with the rest of NATO, which could create smaller ruptures that may still cause a temporary waning in cohesion within the alliance.
The American Pursuit of Hemispheric Dominance
President Trump’s push to acquire Greenland is the most recent addition to a long line of expansionist endeavours, including the extradition of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro, threats against Cuba and Colombia, and meddling with Canada during the 2025 federal election. These incursions point towards a broader American goal of hemispheric dominance, which could signal wider changes within the dynamics of the international order. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, international dynamics shifted to a unipolar system, with the U.S. and its liberal institutions at the helm. Despite the steady rise of revisionist states and their systems – most notably China – as time passed, international norms have largely been molded around liberalism, placing heavy emphasis on globalized trade. However, with President Trump’s demonstrated willingness to bend the norms his country created, ignoring established frameworks to pursue independent goals, the shift towards multipolarity in the international system may accelerate in the long run, as states find the U.S. and its institutions less and less credible. While robust organizations, such as NATO, are unlikely to collapse overnight, repeated blows to the legitimacy of their established norms may create deeper cracks in their foundations, signifying an American pursuit of hemispheric dominance as a net loss in their global influence.
The Trump administration’s overarching aim to solidify its influence over the Americas is reflected in its shaky claims of national security interests for acquiring Greenland. If the U.S. were truly worried about revisionist powers’ influence in the Arctic region, it would never need to push for full possession, as it already has great agency to exert a large military presence on the island regardless. Further pushes serve only to alienate Washington’s closest allies in this scenario, which would undermine overall state security, pointing to underlying objectives as a motive for his actions. The level of commitment President Trump is willing to exert to expansionism remains to be seen, however, and the world can only watch as his actions slowly chisel away at the current balance of the international system.
Edited by Matteo de Campos Mello Grijns
The argument defended in this article is solely that of the author and does not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science, the Political Science Students’ Association, or the McGill Department of Political Science..
Featured image by wikicommons
