The renewed ambition to acquire Greenland reflects an intriguing blend of geopolitics, national aspiration, and economic strategy. Championed now by US President-elect Donald Trump, this idea has resurfaced with remarkable seriousness, raising questions about sovereignty, international relations, and global security. Greenland, the world’s largest island, is far more than an icy expanse. Its immense natural resources, strategic military importance, and proximity to emerging Arctic trade routes make it a geopolitical prize. With the Arctic becoming a stage for global competition, nations like Russia and China have amplified their influence in the region.

For the US, acquiring Greenland could reinforce its Arctic foothold and counter these rival powers. For Mr Trump, who views territorial expansion as part of his legacy, Greenland represents both a strategic asset and a potential historical achievement. US interest in Greenland is not new. In 1946, President Harry Truman’s administration offered $100 million for the island, only to be rebuffed by Denmark. While the world has changed dramatically since then, the appeal of Greenland remains. Its reserves of oil, gas, and rare earth minerals, combined with its strategic location for missile defence and Arctic shipping, make it an undeniable asset. However, the idea of purchasing Greenland raises significant questions about ethical governance and respect for sovereignty. Greenland’s 57,000 residents, mostly of Inuit descent, govern their own domestic affairs under Denmark’s oversight.

Advertisement

Any attempt to acquire the island would need to respect their autonomy and cultural identity, a principle that aligns poorly with the optics of unilateral land acquisition in today’s interconnected world. Mr Trump’s approach reflects a desire to leave a legacy akin to historical territorial expansions like Alaska. Yet, the 21st century is a far cry from the 19th, when imperialist ambitions defined global politics. Today’s international order relies on alliances, shared goals, and the inviolability of borders. Pursuing Greenland risks destabilising US-European relations, particularly with Denmark, while setting a controversial precedent. Proponents argue that Greenland would enhance US geopolitical standing and economic potential. However, the financial and diplomatic costs of such an acquisition would be immense. Developing Greenland’s infrastructure, addressing environmental challenges, and managing international fallout would demand unprecedented resources. A more pragmatic approach would involve strengthening ties with Greenland and Denmark. Economic partnerships, scientific collaboration, and agreements like the Compact of Free Association could secure American strategic interests without undermining sovereignty.

Such arrangements foster mutual benefits while respecting autonomy, presenting a viable alternative to outright ownership. Ultimately, Greenland’s allure underscores timeless questions about the limits of power and the ethics of expansion. For Mr Trump, the pursuit of Greenland may seem like a bold legacy move. But in an era that demands cooperation over competition, the US must prioritise partnerships over acquisition, respecting Greenland’s right to self-determination while navigating the complexities of global diplomacy.