Why Is Washington Openly Disregarding International Law in the Greenland Issue?

US authorities have traditionally viewed the Arctic from a great-power perspective, i.e. primarily through the lens of military and resource significance. This explains Trump’s threefold interest in Greenland.

The first and most prominent motive is military, with a strategic emphasis on protecting the US mainland from the northeast — effectively framing Greenland as a “second Alaska”. This concern intensified following reports of China’s successful hypersonic orbital missile test in 2021. Notably, Trump’s proposed “Golden Dome” missile defense system is intended to protect US territory only, reducing the strategic importance of NATO allies in this calculus.

However, as Danish officials themselves emphasize, the US does not need to seize the island to pursue these objectives. American troops were first stationed there during World War II, and in 1953 the US built the Thule Air Base (now Pituffik) in northern Greenland. Today, the site hosts missile-warning radars, a ground unit of US Space Command, and the only American deep-water port in the Arctic. While Danes and Greenlanders oppose further expansion of the US military presence, they would likely succumb to pressure.

The second, broader motive concerns the US policy of globally containing China, which was explicitly extended to the Arctic during Trump’s first term in May 2019, in then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s hardline speech on the sidelines of the Arctic Council ministerial meeting in Rovaniemi, Finland. This approach has continued under President Biden and has intensified recently, with US leaders invoking it to justify claims on Greenland. Speaking in Pituffik on 28 March 2025, US Vice President J.D. Vance stated that “Russia and China and other nations are taking an extraordinary interest in Arctic passageways and Arctic naval roots and indeed in the minerals of the Arctic territories,” concluding that American leadership in the Arctic was necessary lest “other nations will fill the gap where we fall behind.” He also argued that Denmark was allegedly failing to fulfill its responsibilities for defending the island.

At the same time, NATO itself denies the presence of Russian or Chinese naval activity in Greenlandic waters.

The third motive, closely linked to the second, concerns rare earth metals, which are critical for modern civilian and military electronics, power engineering, and batteries. The United States currently imports over 70% of its rare earth requirements from China and is acutely aware of this vulnerability—an issue addressed by President Trump during his first term. Greenland hosts rare earth deposits along much of its coastline, with the southern Gardar Province standing out; recent estimates suggest it alone could contain up to a quarter of global reserves and supply as much as 9% of worldwide production.

As for Denmark—whose perspective the US seems to disregard—its primary interest lies in preserving the integrity of the Kingdom. Greenland comprises 98% of Danish territory and serves as Copenhagen’s gateway to the exclusive ‘Arctic Five,’ the group of states with direct access to the Arctic Ocean. At the same time, many Danes, including right-wing members of the Folketing (parliament), recognize that Denmark long treated Greenland in a colonial manner, neglecting investment in its development even as global interest in the Arctic increased. Consequently, most Greenlanders—including nearly all local political parties—support independence, differing only on questions of timing and approach.

Denmark’s current Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, has devoted far more attention to the issue than her predecessors. She won considerable support from Greenlanders in 2019 when, responding to Trump’s proposal to purchase the island, she stated, ‘Greenland is not for sale. Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.’ Frederiksen regularly visits the island and actively involves Greenlandic representatives in Denmark’s foreign-policy initiatives, including its current chairmanship of the Arctic Council. 

In light of these factors, a forceful annexation of Greenland by the United States cannot be ruled out. Such a scenario would signify the emergence of a fundamentally new — or rather, a return to an old, imperial — world order based not on “soft power,” but on the harshest forms of coercion. From the broader Arctic perspective, it is regrettable that the Arctic Council has deliberately avoided military security issues and therefore would be unable either to prevent or resolve the current crisis. At the same time, as Russian ambassadors to Copenhagen and Oslo have noted, Denmark itself has shown limited interest in developing regional cooperation.