The Game of Interests and Sovereignty in Greenland

Key Chapter Title List

1. Background of Greenland's Early Parliamentary Session
2. Trump's Statement: Context and Interpretation
3. Strategic Value Under Ice Melt and Opening Sea Routes
4. Political Party Consensus: Rejecting Status Change Under External Pressure
5. Limits of Autonomy: The Continuously Squeezed Decision-Making Space
6. Denmark's Response and Greenland's Internal Debate
7. Sparse Population but Significant Strategic Importance
8. The Dilemma of Being Caught Between Great Power Interests
9. The Limitations of Power Politics
10. Potential Future Power Expansion and Constitutional Status Evolution
11. Prospects for an Independence Referendum: From Theory to Reality
12. Implications for Great Power 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 maintain 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 Trump publicly reiterated that the U.S. must control Greenland as a starting point, the report systematically analyzes Greenland's internal political reactions, the stance of the Kingdom of Denmark, and the profound impact of this event on 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. Although Greenland's major political parties have long held differing views on the issue of moving towards full independence from Denmark, 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 sea routes (such as the Northwest Passage) and the rising demand for resources critical to batteries and modern electronics, such as rare earth elements, collectively grant Greenland 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-governance in 2009, its foreign affairs, defense, and major financial matters remain controlled by Copenhagen. As global security calculations increasingly focus on the Arctic, this division of power is under significant strain. The report documents Greenland's growing internal debate over whether the current arrangements provide sufficient political space to protect its own interests. Although the Danish government swiftly dismissed Trump's remarks and reaffirmed its support for Greenland, it could not quell local dissatisfaction with the inability to directly participate in decisions concerning its own future.

This report reveals a core dilemma: while deeply entangled in the strategic games of great powers, 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 integration and sparking serious discussions about future constitutional status. The current consensus does not entirely revolve around establishing an independent state but emphasizes enhancing independent decision-making capabilities, especially 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 Denmark to expand its substantive powers. 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, is more likely 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 diverse partners like the EU, rather than becoming a reliable ally. Greenland's demands are becoming a key variable shaping the future landscape of Arctic policy.