Answer

Introduction

America has intensified its strategic focus on Greenland, viewing it as a linchpin of North American defense and a counterweight to Russian and Chinese expansion. This renewed ambition, underscored by the US 2025 National Security Strategy, seeks to secure critical mineral supply chains and revitalize the “Donroe Doctrine” extending the Monroe Doctrine’s hemispheric logic to the high north.

Body

Implications for Arctic Geopolitics

• Challenging Sovereignty Norms: The push for a “transactional” acquisition of Greenland creates significant friction within Denmark and challenges established European sovereignty.
  Eg: The Danish Prime Minister in January 2026, said that unilateral US pressure on Greenland could signal the “end of NATO” as a cohesive alliance.
• Resource Nationalism Surge: Greenland’s vast deposits of Rare Earth Elements (REEs) (like Kvanefjeld) have become a site of geoeconomic contestation to break China’s monopoly.
  Eg: The US Export-Import Bank recently issued a letter of interest for a $120 million loan for the Tanbreez rare earth mine in Greenland.
• Arctic Shipping Routes: Control over Greenland offers a strategic advantage in managing the emerging Northwest Passage, which could soon become a viable summer transit route.
  Eg: Global warming is redrawing maps, making Greenland’s southern tip a potential “Singapore of the North” for future trans-polar trade.
• Indigenous Agency vs. Power: Greenland’s “Nothing about us without us” strategy faces a test as its desire for independence clashes with great-power demands.

Implications for Global Security Architecture

• Militarization of the High North: The expansion of the Pituffik Space Base marks a shift from scientific research toward forward-deployed missile defense and space surveillance.
  Eg: US strategic messaging in 2026 has prioritized early-warning assets in Greenland to counter Russian hypersonic and submarine threats.
• NATO Cohesion Crisis: Territorial disputes between USA and a other ally threaten the Article 5 principle of collective defense and territorial integrity.
  Eg: European leaders have warned that alliance credibility would “collapse” if one member coerced another over territory.
• The GIUK Gap Revival: Greenland is central to the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-UK) Gap, a Cold War-era chokepoint now revitalized to monitor Russian naval movements into the Atlantic.
  Eg: NATO is redeploying anti-submarine surveillance systems to ensure that the North Atlantic remains a secure “highway” for resupply.
• Fragmenting Arctic Governance: The focus on “hemispheric defense” by the US risks further sidelining the Arctic Council, which has already been weakened by the exclusion of Russia since 2022.

Measures for Multilateral Institutions

• Revitalize the Arctic Council: Multilateral bodies must reinstate full functional cooperation with all Arctic states to ensure that the region remains a “Zone of Peace” rather than a theater of war.
• Formalize an Arctic Treaty: Unlike Antarctica, the Arctic lacks a comprehensive treaty, underscoring the need for a UN-backed binding framework prohibiting territorial annexation.
• Strengthen UNCLOS Enforcement: Multilateral forums must ensure that emerging shipping routes are governed by UNCLOS to safeguard freedom of navigation for all.
  Eg: Developing a neutral maritime governance framework under UNCLOS can prevent the unilateral control of trans-polar passages
• Institutionalize Indigenous Voice: Forums like the Arctic North American Forum should be empowered to ensure that local Greenlandic consent is a prerequisite for any resource or security deal.

Conclusion

The Arctic is now a front-line of 21st-century competition, requiring a shift from predatory bargaining to a transatlantic strategy of shared investment and environmental stewardship, with its mineral and strategic wealth governed through collaborative multilateralism rather than unilateral dominance.

DOWNLOAD PDF