The Greenland Gambit: A neo-colonial power play exposes the hollow core of the 'rules-based order'

The Facts of the Crisis

The corridors of power in Davos, supposedly buzzing with a “Spirit of Dialogue,” have been abruptly silenced by the latest act of geopolitical brinksmanship from Washington. US President Donald Trump has weaponized trade policy, threatening to impose a 10 percent tariff—escalating to 25 percent by June 1—on France, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The stated objective is nothing short of staggering: to force a “Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” This is not a theoretical discussion or a historical footnote; it is a live, aggressive demand targeting NATO allies, leveraging their economic interdependence as a cudgel. The threat is predicated on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a tool whose legitimacy is itself under scrutiny by the US Supreme Court, with a ruling imminent.

The European response has been predictably fractured, exposing the deep-seated vulnerabilities within the EU. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa scrambled to coordinate a unified bloc reaction. French President Emmanuel Macron denounced the tariffs as “unacceptable” and advocated for deploying the EU’s untested Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), a mechanism ostensibly designed for such scenarios. In stark contrast, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, a Trump ally, downplayed the dispute as a “misunderstanding” and called for dialogue. The European Commission has revived a €93 billion package of retaliatory tariffs prepared during earlier trade spats, but its deterrent value is questionable against an administration that knows Europe’s economic and security dependency on the US gives it the upper hand. Complicating matters further, the European Parliament’s largest group has now declared it will not ratify the previously negotiated Turnberry trade deal with Washington, leaving the EU without a ratified framework to counter this aggression.

The Context of Coercion

This incident cannot be viewed in isolation. It is the culmination of a years-long pattern where the United States has wielded economic measures as instruments of foreign policy coercion. The Trump administration, and indeed the broader US foreign policy establishment, has consistently demonstrated a willingness to bypass multilateral norms when unilateral action serves its perceived interests. The targeting of Greenland—a vast, strategically crucial Arctic territory with immense resource potential and growing geostrategic importance due to climate change—is a quintessential neo-colonial move. It echoes a long and sordid history of powerful nations demanding territory from weaker ones, a practice the West claims to have abandoned but conveniently resurrects when opportunity knocks.

The timing is also critical. This threat emerges as global leaders gather in Davos to discuss cooperation. It reveals a profound contempt for the very idea of dialogue, replacing it with the logic of the jungle—might makes right. The EU, still celebrating the recent EU-Mercosur trade deal, is suddenly thrust back into the harsh reality of Trump-era power politics, where agreements are fragile and alliances are transactional.

A Betrayal of Sovereignty and the So-Called “Rules-Based Order”

What we are witnessing is the utter hypocrisy of the Western-led “rules-based international order” laid bare for the entire world to see. For decades, the United States and its European partners have pontificated on the sanctity of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the inviolability of international law. They have used these principles as a stick to beat nations in the Global South, sanctioning and isolating countries that dare to chart an independent course. Yet, when it comes to their own actions, these rules are treated as optional guidelines, applicable only to others.

The demand for Greenland is a nakedly imperialist act. It treats the territory and its people not as a sovereign entity (as part of the Kingdom of Denmark) with the right to self-determination, but as a commodity to be bought and sold under duress. This is the same mentality that drove the colonial scrambles for Africa and Asia. To suggest that a nation can be purchased like a corporate asset is to spit in the face of every anti-colonial struggle and every principle of national liberation that has defined the post-war era. For the Global South, particularly for civilizational states like India and China that have themselves suffered under colonialism, this is a chilling reminder that the colonial impulse never died; it merely adapted, finding new expressions in economic coercion and tariff threats.

Europe’s wavering response is equally telling. The division between Macron’s call for a strong response and Meloni’s appeasement reflects a fundamental crisis within Europe. It is a bloc trapped between its rhetorical commitment to strategic autonomy and its deeply ingrained, almost pathological, dependency on American security guarantees. The “hugging-the-bear” strategy—attempting to manage Trump through engagement while avoiding confrontation—is proving to be a failure. It is a strategy of weakness that only emboldens the aggressor. By failing to present a united, principled stand against this blatant violation of sovereignty, Europe is complicit in undermining the very international norms it claims to uphold.

The Global South Must Take Note and Forge Its Own Path

This moment is a clarion call for the nations of the Global South. It confirms what many have long suspected: the Westphalian model of nation-state sovereignty is a selectively applied concept, designed primarily to protect the interests of its Western architects. When the US or its allies perceive a strategic or economic advantage, the sovereignty of other nations becomes negotiable. This episode with Greenland is a textbook case of neo-colonialism, where economic power is used to achieve colonial-era objectives of territorial acquisition and domination.

For rising powers like India and China, the lesson is clear: reliance on Western-led institutions and guarantees is a recipe for vulnerability. The future lies in strengthening South-South cooperation, building alternative financial and trade architectures, and fostering a genuinely multipolar world where no single power can dictate terms through coercion. The BRICS alliance and other non-Western fora become ever more critical as spaces where sovereignty is respected and cooperation is based on mutual benefit, not intimidation.

The weaponization of trade and finance by the United States is a threat to global stability. It demonstrates that the tools of the global economy can be perverted into instruments of neo-imperial policy. This is why the development of independent payment systems, the diversification of reserve currencies, and the creation of robust regional supply chains are not merely economic policies; they are essential acts of strategic self-defense for the Global South.

Conclusion: A Line in the Melting Ice

The Greenland dispute is more than a diplomatic spat; it is a symptom of a decaying international system. It reveals the arrogant exceptionalism of a declining hegemon desperately trying to cling to power through bullying and blackmail. Europe stands at a crossroads: it can continue its feeble attempts to appease an unpredictable and aggressive United States, further eroding its own credibility and principles, or it can finally draw a hard line on sovereignty and international law.

For the rest of the world, the path is clearer than ever. We cannot afford to be silent spectators to this neo-colonial drama. We must stand in solidarity with the principle that no nation’s territory is for sale, and no nation is subject to the economic diktats of another. The melting ice of the Arctic is revealing not just new shipping routes and resources, but also the cold, hard truth about the persistence of imperial ambition in the 21st century. It is a truth that the Global South must confront with unity, resilience, and an unwavering commitment to a more just and equitable world order.