The Game of Interests and Sovereignty in Greenland

Key Chapter Title List

1. Background of Greenland's Early Parliamentary Meeting
2. Trump's Statement: Background and Interpretation
3. Strategic Value Under Ice Melt and Opening Shipping Routes
4. Political Party Consensus: Rejecting Status Change Under External Pressure
5. Limitations of Autonomy: The Continuously Shrinking Decision-Making Space
6. Denmark's Response and Internal Debate in Greenland
7. Sparse Population but Significant Strategic Importance
8. The Dilemma of Being Caught Between Great Power Interests
9. Limitations of Power Politics
10. Potential Future Power Expansion and Constitutional Status Evolution
11. Prospect of an Independence Referendum: From Theory to Reality
12. Implications for Great Powers' Arctic Policies

Document Introduction

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the core challenges faced by Greenland in the context of intensifying geopolitical competition in the Arctic: namely, how to safeguard and expand its autonomous rights and decision-making sovereignty under direct political and security pressure from external powers, particularly the United States. Using the January 2024 incident where former U.S. President Donald Trump publicly reiterated that the U.S. "must control Greenland" as a starting point, the report systematically analyzes the internal political reactions in Greenland, the stance of the Kingdom of Denmark, and the profound implications of this event for the future direction of Greenland's constitutional status.

The report first outlines the event's background. The Greenland Parliament (Inatsisartut) unusually moved its regular session forward to January, aiming to jointly respond to Trump's remarks, which were interpreted as direct political and security pressure. Despite long-standing disagreements among Greenland's major political parties on the issue of seceding from Denmark to achieve full independence, this time they demonstrated a high degree of unity, unanimously rejecting any change in status under external pressure. The report points out that the accelerated melting of Arctic ice opening new shipping routes (such as the Northwest Passage), coupled with rising demand for resources critical to batteries and modern electronics like rare earth elements, collectively endows Greenland with geopolitical and economic value far exceeding its population size, making it a new focal point of great power competition.

The report further analyzes the inherent tensions within Greenland's autonomy framework. Since gaining extensive self-government in 2009, its foreign affairs, defense, and major financial matters have remained under Copenhagen's control. As global security calculations increasingly focus on the Arctic, this division of powers is under immense strain. The report documents the growing internal debate in Greenland over whether the current arrangements provide sufficient political space to protect its own interests. While the Danish government swiftly rebutted Trump's statement and reaffirmed its support for Greenland, it could not quell local dissatisfaction over the inability to directly participate in decisions concerning its own future.

This report reveals a core dilemma: although deeply entangled in the games of great power interests, Greenland cannot fully control its own foreign policy. However, external pressure has not led Greenland's political elite to yield; instead, it has produced a "boomerang effect"—accelerating internal political consolidation and sparking serious discussions about future constitutional status. The current consensus is not entirely centered on establishing an independent state but emphasizes enhancing independent decision-making capabilities, particularly in areas such as natural resource management, investment policy, and international economic relations.

Finally, the report assesses potential future development paths. In the short term, Greenland may formally request expanded substantive powers from Denmark. In the medium term, if external pressure persists and internal unity is maintained, holding an independence referendum will no longer be a theoretical issue. The report concludes that Greenland's case reveals the limitations of power politics in contemporary international relations: a well-institutionalized and politically awakened small society, when faced with overt pressure, tends to consolidate its own identity and insist on autonomous decision-making rights. This serves as a crucial warning for the United States and other major powers seeking to expand their influence in the Arctic: a hardline stance may lead to counterproductive results, fostering a Greenland that insists on neutrality and seeks cooperation with more parties like the EU, rather than becoming a reliable partner. Greenland's demands are becoming a key variable shaping the future Arctic policy landscape.