U.S. Strategic Interests in Greenland

Syllabus: Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests.

Background and Recent Developments

  • U.S. President Donald Trump revived Greenland takeover demands in January 2025.
  • Denmark rejected the proposal, reiterating Greenland is not for sale.
  • Trump threatened high tariffs and possible military force to press negotiations.
  • In January 2026, the White House proposed 10% tariffs on eight European countries.
  • Tariffs were planned to rise to 25% by June 2026 if no Greenland agreement emerged.
  • At Davos 2026, Trump softened rhetoric, announcing a “framework of a future deal”.

Strategic and Security Dimensions

  • The U.S. cites Greenland’s Arctic location as vital for national and regional security.
  • Trump claimed expanding Russian and Chinese influence justified U.S. involvement.
  • Greenland already falls under NATO’s collective security umbrella.
  • The 1951 U.S.-Denmark pact allows expanded U.S. military presence during security threats.
  • U.S. troop presence declined from 10,000 during the Cold War to about 200 today.
  • Discussions included the $175 billion Golden Dome missile defence system.

Resource and Economic Motivations

  • Greenland holds significant reserves of oil and natural gas.
  • The territory contains 25 of 34 critical raw materials listed by the European Commission.
  • Key minerals include graphite and titanium, vital for defence and clean energy sectors.
  • Reports suggest resource extraction, not security, drives Washington’s strategic interest.

Diplomatic and Legal Implications

  • NATO Secretary General stated Danish sovereignty was not discussed in talks.
  • U.S. officials hinted at partial territorial control, similar to U.K. bases in Cyprus.
  • European nations warned of counter-tariffs targeting major U.S. technology firms.
  • Legal challenges may arise against U.S. tariff use under emergency economic powers.

Broader Global Ramifications

  • The episode raises fears of neo-imperialist interference in sovereign territories.
  • Countries like India and China are urged to defend territorial sovereignty principles.
  • The case highlights stress on the rules-based international order in strategic competition.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top