No new flag is flying over Greenland, but with a new American military presence taking shape across the Arctic island, who is really gaining control?
A Deal Without a Flag
That is the question hanging over Greenland after the United States, Denmark and Greenland signed a deal on 22 September to expand America’s military presence on the Arctic island. The deal keeps Greenland within the Kingdom of Denmark and, officials say, formally recognises Greenlanders’ right to self-determination. Yet Washington is set to gain a much larger strategic footprint, and President Donald Trump has described the arrangement as giving the United States “permanent control over security, and all other needs” in Greenland.
Why Greenland? Geography. Security. Resources
Located between North America and Europe, and with much of its territory inside the Arctic Circle, Greenland sits at a crucial point in the defence of the North Atlantic and is rich in minerals. The United States already operates Pituffik Space Base, supporting missile warning, missile defence and space surveillance for the US and NATO. The new arrangement also bars non-NATO military bases, a US official says, and restricts strategic investments by American adversaries such as Russia and China without US approval.
Who Holds the Veto?
For Denmark and Greenland, however, the equation is more delicate. Security cooperation can certainly strengthen defence. But strategic influence can also raise difficult questions about who controls military access, foreign investment and, ultimately, the choices available to Greenland. Under the deal, Washington can reportedly build more sites without Danish or Greenlandic approval.
Control Without Ownership
That is where the phrase “control without ownership” becomes important.
A territory can remain legally sovereign while another power acquires enormous strategic influence over what happens there.
Whose Future?
The map may remain unchanged. The balance of influence may not. And as the Arctic heats up, in climate and in geopolitics, one question will grow harder to ignore: if Greenland’s future is Greenlandic, how much of that future should be decided by Greenland itself?
–
Edited by Katyayani Sinha.
