Sailing the stage of northern lights – Greenland’s future in the storm of world politics

On the surface of its ice sheets, it may not seem like Greenland has much to offer the power-hungry actors of the ever-volatile geopolitical arena. The country has an exceptionally small population, just under 57,000 for its land area, and an economy that is mostly reliant on fishing and Danish subsidies. Regardless, the old saying “never judge a book by its cover” still stands: a truth vibrating from Greenland’s fragile glaciers to the very fabric of its residents. The world is watching, and more closely than ever before, as strongmen craft growing lists of strategic aspirations. Above these voices, it is important to understand the position of Greenland itself.

Demystifying Greenland

For thousands of years, Greenland has been mostly inhabited by the Inuit peoples, also known as Greenlanders. They have developed a distinct and resilient culture, adapting to a way of life centred around subsistence hunting for most of their history. By incorporating interdependent family units, and resourcefully using their surrounding environment, the Inuit peoples have effectively managed to survive Greenland’s harsh arctic climate.

Denmark’s rule over Greenland, dating back to the 18th century, remained largely passive until 1953. From this point, in a more subtle example of a colonial-style ‘civilising mission’, Denmark attempted to assimilate Greenland. This was done by formally declaring the island a county of Denmark and opening up the Greenlandic economy to commercial fishing practices. These actions greatly disrupted the island’s traditional social structures, leading to many locals being herded into towns while abandoning small villages. The lack of protection that subsistence hunting previously provided in village life has led to many Greenlanders struggling to afford basic needs. Consequentially, Greenland’s poverty and suicide rates are significantly higher than the Danish average.

Successive referendums and reforms resulted in today’s “semi-autonomous” Greenland that, still acting within the Danish realm, has control over all governing affairs besides foreign relations and defence

Those who tried to benefit from these changes had to conform to the Danish language and culture, while local Inuit customs were increasingly marginalised. The fallout, though mitigated, continues to affect Greenland to this day, with its most recent impact being the emergence of the IUD scandal. This revealed that Danish physicians in the 1960s and 1970s initiated forced contraception on Greenlandic Inuit girls, in an effort to curb the growth of the local population.

Nevertheless, since the 1980s, Greenlandic politicians have fought a continuing successful effort to revive Greenland’s local culture and pave the way for the island’s eventual independence. Successive referendums and reforms resulted in today’s ‘semi-autonomous’ Greenland that, still acting within the Danish realm, has control over all governing affairs besides foreign relations and defence.

Show on Ice

Must-grabs on foreign policy bucket lists have garnered glaring eyes towards Greenland’s shores. As a consequence of climate change, Greenland’s ice cap is melting, at an astronomical rate of 200 gigatons of ice a year. This will lead to two significant changes to Greenland’s environment in the future.

Greenland is estimated to have the eighth largest amount of RER reserves globally, standing at 1.5 million tonnes

Firstly, it has made the prospect of extracting rare Earth metals (RERs) from Greenland much more feasible, made previously inaccessible due to the difficulties of penetrating through its ice. Greenland is estimated to have the eighth largest amount of RER reserves globally, standing at 1.5 million tonnes. RERs have increasingly occupied the same position in geopolitics as oil in the last century, acting as a crucial resource for much of the operations of high-technology devices such as military equipment including advanced fighter jets.

Even before tariff-mania and Trump’s crusade against foreign reliance, a key priority of both the US and EU was securing more reliable sources of RERs, since most RERs extracted currently come from China, with whom relations are complicated, to say the least. Trump’s actions have only heightened this threat, with China now using RER export controls as a counter to reciprocal tariffs. The EU and US want to prevent a situation where China can break their legs before they can run in the event of armed conflict, so securing Greenland as a source of RERs, is critical to their mineral independence and respective military backbones. Though neither China nor Russia has strengthened investment in Greenland recently, with Putin openly saying that Greenland has “nothing to do with Russia” as part of his ongoing détente with Trump, the risk is nevertheless continually outlined by Trump and his allies as a key priority of US national security.

Secondly, a melting ice cap will open new trading routes through the Arctic, allowing commercial shipping to transit through routes around Greenland without the time and cost of icebreakers. A lucrative prospect, shipping routes through the Arctic could significantly cut global maritime transit times, as much as 14-20 days less compared to the routes via the Suez and Panama Canals. The region has already seen increasing militarisation in preparation for protecting future commercial interests and the US may seek to expand its existing security architecture on Greenland to keep pace with its rivals. Russia has already significantly prepared for this change by ramping up infrastructure and military presence in the Arctic, along with increasing regulation on commercial shipping near its Arctic coast.

An Opportunity?

It appears Greenland has been left to balance on thin ice, but even with the looming threat of a hostile takeover by the US, the recent discourse sparked by world powers can be of benefit to the island’s future.

A key struggle on the road to Greenland’s independence is the continued reliance on financial subsidies from Denmark, making up approximately 20% of the island’s GDP. A pro-business approach of working with corporate entities to take advantage of Greenland’s resources could greatly increase the island’s economic self-sufficiency

International attention has increased local participation and discussion in Greenland’s politics, such as the victory of the centre-right party, Demokraatit, in Greenland’s general election earlier this year. The party’s push for a gradual roadmap to independence, whereby it uses Denmark’s security cover to counter threats of annexation by Trump, and pro-business policies, resonated well with voters. A key struggle on the road to Greenland’s independence is the continued reliance on financial subsidies from Denmark, making up approximately 20% of the island’s GDP. A pro-business approach of working with corporate entities to take advantage of Greenland’s resources could greatly increase the island’s economic self-sufficiency.

Despite this trajectory, local concerns have highlighted that if mining operations were to expand, especially from foreign companies, its economic benefits may not be passed back to Greenlanders, subjecting Greenland to the same abusive economic relationship that many countries in the Global South have suffered because of unequal profit distribution. This is in addition to concerns over environmental protection, which may be threatened if the government scraps them for monetary gain.

Previously in 2021, mining at the Kuannersuit mine was limited due to the presence of uranium at the site, the radiation from which could harm locals. The issue will prove particularly difficult for extracting Greenland’s RERs, given many of these deposits are found alongside uranium.

Demokraatit’s main opposition, the populist party Naleraq, has contrastingly sought to use US pressure to gain negotiating leverage over Denmark for a rapid pathway to independence. Despite being opposed to Trump’s calls for annexation, it has sought to negotiate with the US. One could imagine a potential deal being similar to the Free Association Agreements the US has signed with its Pacific island partners. This style of arrangement would see nominal independence, but with US financial support and military presence, could alleviate the issue of economic independence sooner while satisfying Trump’s concerns and Greenlandic sovereignty.

For now, cooperation with the US is not popular, a sentiment demonstrated when pressure from both the Greenlandic and Danish governments forced US Vice President JD Vance to scale down plans for an unwelcome intrusion into Greenland, restricting his visit to the US’ military base in Pituffik. Greenlanders are weary and seem to be no stranger to the US’ own track record. One only needs to look at the eventual annexation of Hawaii by the US in 1898, which led to a serious erosion of the indigenous language and culture, in addition to the economic marginalisation of the population by overarching US business interests. A similar scenario could play out again in Greenland if it is annexed by the US.

Greenlanders remain in favour of full independence, seeing the Wilsonian norm of self-determination as the best way to prevent further erosion of their way of life

However, while the Greenlandic government has cooperated with Denmark, Greenland as a whole is not amused by either Copenhagen or Washington, having not forgotten Denmark’s foul play on the island. Greenlanders remain in favour of full independence, seeing the Wilsonian norm of self-determination as the best way to prevent further erosion of their way of life. Recent polling by Verian suggests that if an independence referendum were held today, 56% of the island’s population would vote in favour.

“Greenland belongs to Greenlanders”

Regardless of what actors like Trump may want to believe, Greenland’s collective voice, and not foreign gun barrels, will ultimately be the ones to take aim and call the shots. Some may dispute this claim on account of military force becoming increasingly normalised in global politics, as seen by the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. The flip side to this is that where fires are lit, the wind of ashes will follow, and Greenland is more than ready to take the path of activism to defend its sovereignty if it comes to it. Greenland’s people know without doubt that the future is theirs, and having already come far in self-governance, they will not back down from it. In the end, the future of Greenland is far from completely written, and the path ahead could well be altered by the following election, but one can say with confidence that all possible aspirations will share the age-old desire for freedom.