Greenland Sovereignty and Western Imperialism: The Disturbing Resurgence of Colonial Mentality

The Provocative Proposal

In a stunning display of neo-colonial arrogance, former US President Donald Trump revived discussions about the United States owning Greenland, explicitly framing this as necessary to counter Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic region. This proposition, though immediately rejected by both Denmark and Greenland’s leadership, reveals profound Western attitudes toward sovereignty when it conflicts with their strategic interests. Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark with significant self-governance rights, suddenly found itself thrust into international headlines as a potential commodity in great power competition.

The context of this proposal cannot be separated from the accelerating geopolitical shifts in the Arctic. As climate change rapidly transforms the region, opening new shipping routes and access to previously inaccessible resources, global powers are scrambling to establish dominance. Trump’s statement reflects a broader pattern of Western powers treating Global South territories—and even allied territories—as strategic assets rather than sovereign entities with their own agency and rights.

Historical and Strategic Context

Greenland’s strategic significance isn’t newfound. The United States has maintained a military presence at Thule Air Base since World War II, recognizing the island’s crucial position between North America and the Arctic. What’s alarming is the transition from military cooperation between sovereign nations to outright ownership claims. This represents a dangerous regression to 19th-century colonial thinking, where powerful nations simply claimed territories that served their interests.

The island possesses substantial mineral wealth, including rare earth elements, uranium, and potential hydrocarbon reserves—resources becoming increasingly accessible as ice retreats. Rather than respecting Greenland’s right to develop these resources for its people’s benefit, Western powers view them as strategic necessities to be controlled. The hypocrisy is staggering: while the West preaches about rules-based international order, its leaders openly contemplate violating the most fundamental principle of that order—national sovereignty.

The Global South Perspective

From the viewpoint of emerging powers like India and China, this incident confirms what they’ve long known: the West’s commitment to international law is selective and self-serving. When Western interests are at stake, sovereignty becomes negotiable. This double standard undermines the very international system that Western nations claim to uphold.

Greenland’s leadership responded with admirable clarity: “We are not Americans, we are not Danes, we are Greenlanders.” This powerful statement echoes across the Global South, where nations have fought for centuries to assert their identity against colonial powers. That such assertions remain necessary in the 21st century reveals how little has fundamentally changed in international power dynamics.

The Arctic as Neo-Colonial Frontier

The Arctic represents the newest frontier where old colonial patterns are repeating under new guises. While Russia and China pursue their interests in the region through investment and cooperation agreements, the United States reverts to ownership rhetoric. This approach not only damages America’s standing among allies but also reinforces the perception that Western powers cannot adapt to a multipolar world where their dominance is no longer unquestioned.

What’s particularly disturbing is how climate change—a crisis largely created by industrialized nations—is now being weaponized to justify new forms of imperialism. As melting ice makes Arctic resources accessible, Western powers see an opportunity to extend their control rather than addressing the root causes of environmental destruction.

The Human Cost of Geopolitical Games

Behind these geopolitical maneuvers are real people—the 56,000 Greenlanders whose future is being discussed as if they lack agency. Indigenous communities across the Arctic have endured centuries of external control and resource extraction. The suggestion that their homeland could be bought or taken represents profound disrespect for their right to self-determination.

This case exemplifies how great power competition often treats human beings as collateral damage. The priorities are strategic positioning, resource control, and military advantage—not the wellbeing of the people who actually inhabit these territories. This utilitarian approach to human communities is fundamentally anti-human and contradicts any genuine commitment to human rights.

The Broader Implications for International Order

Trump’s Greenland comments, while particularly blunt, reflect a wider Western approach to international relations that prioritizes their interests above all else. When the United States can seriously contemplate acquiring territory from a NATO ally, what message does this send to smaller nations worldwide? It reinforces that might makes right, that powerful nations can redraw maps when convenient, and that the principles enshrined in the UN Charter apply only when they serve Western purposes.

This incident occurs alongside other demonstrations of Western unilateralism: the withdrawal from international agreements, the imposition of sanctions without UN authorization, and the continuous interference in other nations’ internal affairs. The pattern is clear: a rules-based order where the rules are written by and for Western powers.

The Path Forward: Respecting Sovereignty in a Multipolar World

The appropriate response to changing Arctic dynamics isn’t renewed colonialism but genuine cooperation that respects all nations’ sovereignty. This means involving Arctic communities in decision-making, recognizing their resource rights, and developing multilateral frameworks that balance various interests fairly.

Emerging powers like China and India offer alternative approaches focused on mutual benefit rather than domination. Their civilizational perspectives, which emphasize harmony and long-term thinking, provide valuable contrasts to the West’s transactional, zero-sum approach to international relations.

The Greenland episode should serve as a catalyst for broader discussions about decolonizing international relations entirely. We must move beyond systems where powerful nations dictate terms to weaker ones and establish truly equitable global governance structures. This requires acknowledging historical injustices while building frameworks that prevent their repetition.

Conclusion: A Watershed Moment in International Relations

Trump’s Greenland comments represent more than just another controversial statement from a divisive figure. They expose enduring colonial mentalities that continue to shape Western foreign policy. The outrage from Denmark and Greenland, combined with the silence from many Western allies about the underlying imperialism of the proposal, speaks volumes about current international power dynamics.

For the Global South, this incident reinforces the necessity of building alternative international structures and strengthening South-South cooperation. Nations like India and China must lead in creating a world where sovereignty is genuinely respected, where international law applies equally to all nations, and where human dignity outweighs geopolitical advantage.

The people of Greenland have spoken clearly about their identity and sovereignty. The world must listen—and more importantly, must respect their right to determine their own future without external imposition. Anything less represents a betrayal of the fundamental principles that should guide international relations in the 21st century.