Greenland and the Great Game

During the 19th Century, Britain and Russia, the great powers of the time, vied for control of Afghanistan, maneuverings which Rudyard Kipling named the “Great Game.” Indigenous Greenland and the Arctic are not tribal Afghanistan and Central Asia.

And yet a Great Game is unfolding at the top of the world, provoked by Russia’s aggressive infrastructure development, China’s unfolding Polar Silk Road, and now President Trump’s blustering cloaked as foreign policy. Inspired by that bluster, on 10 February 2025 Earl “Buddy” Carter, United States Congressman from Georgia, introduced a Bill in the United States House of Representatives “To authorize the President to enter into negotiations to purchase or otherwise acquire Greenland and to rename Greenland Red, White, and Blueland.”

Will 21st century Greenland, like 19th century Afghanistan, be compelled to fend off circling sovereigns? 

Greenland: Difficult choices lie ahead

Photo: Unsplash

Greenland's Elections: Options to ponder

With Greenland national elections 11 March, 2025, Prime Minister Múte Egede said, “We are in the midst of a serious period, a time we have never experienced in our country.” Greenlanders have alternative futures to ponder, from maintaining self-governance within the Danish Realm to pursuing full independence.

Along the way, some will perceive Greenland as merely a prize, while others will address Greenland as a partner. MP Kuno Fencker has observed, “It is utopia to think about a sovereign Greenlandic state without the US being involved in some way.” And as Kenneth Høegh, Head of Greenland Representation to the US and Canada noted, “Greenland will develop ever c1oser relations abroad…” while “progressing toward independence.”

Sovereignty at the Brink

Greenlanders have an expression, “nothing about us, without us.” It is a sentiment that springs from long experience with emissaries, speculators and colonizers. Eiríkr rauði (Erik the Red) established the Norse settlements in the tenth century, highlighting the promise of an island already inhabited by Dorset and later Thule (early Inuit) peoples. In the eighteenth century, missionaries led by Hans Egede arrived from Scandinavia and traders established a monopoly. Then the newly independent Norway tussled with Denmark for sovereign control, until a 1933 decision of the League of Nations Permanent Court of International Justice ensured that the world’s largest island would be part of the Danish realm.

During World War II, when Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany, the United States concluded an agreement with the Danish Envoy in Washington to construct and operate military installations in Greenland.In the Roosevelt White House there was alarm that Germany, via Denmark, could control Greenland, the adjacent waters, and the top of the world.

Thus, Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Danish Envoy Henrik Kauffmann concluded a security agreement by which the United States would “have the right to construct, maintain and operate such landing fields and sea plane facilities and radio and meteorological facilities as may be necessary.”

The Agreement also provided that “the United States [would] respect all legitimate interests in Greenland …pertaining to the native population.” Soon thereafter, a native community was forcibly relocated, Pituffik was renamed Thule, and America’s northernmost military installation was constructed, including a deepwater port and a 10,000 foot runway. When in 1946, President Truman offered to purchase Greenland, Denmark refused. Greenlanders were not consulted.

Northern lights in Greenland

Photo: Unsplash

In subsequent years, the United States and Denmark concluded international agreements pertaining to the construction, maintenance and operation by the US of military facilities in Greenland. These arrangements served US and Allied security interests well, through World War II, the Cold War and in the current geopolitical context. A US-Denmark-Greenland Joint Committee was formed in 2004 and Thule Air Base was uppermost on the agenda. The governments agreed that for base maintenance and expansion, services would be procured directly from Danish/Greenlandic sources.

On April 6, 2023, Thule Base reverted to its Greenlandic name Pituffik and became home to the US Space Base, including the 821st Space Base Group, the 12th Space Warning Squadron and 23rd Space Operations Squadron, enabling force projection, space superiority and Arctic scientific research.

President Trump’s bluster: A prompting of vehement reactions

President Trump’s shot across the bow has raised complex questions and heated debate over sovereignty, self-determination and the public order of Europe. European leaders have reiterated their commitment to defending Greenland’s sovereignty, upholding and reinforcing international law. Denmark has responded with a significant increase in Arctic defense spending, recently committing 14.6 billion kroner ($2.05 billion) to bolster security in the region. But why would the United States, or indeed any other power, want Greenland in this moment?

Greenland: Squarely in the sights of America's new foreign policy

At the dawn of the Cold War there were strategic advantages which today are even more evident. Greenland can enhance United States eyes on the Arctic, its passages, its resources, in a context that now includes accelerating climate change, Russia’s growing Arctic militarization, and China’s quest for high north resources. Greenland is squarely in the sights of American foreign policy.

At the Pituffik Base renaming ceremony, U.S. General Saltzman observed that “renewed strategic competition in the Arctic can be expected with Russia’s historically significant presence in the region and the People’s Republic of China self-proclaimed near-Arctic power, seeking opportunities to expand its influence.”

Climate change: A rising factor

Nevertheless, the region remains home to vibrant Indigenous communities, including all of Greenland.Geopolitics and resource competition notwithstanding, their goal is to foster and thrive in a harmonious Arctic. This is a delicate balance that could be tipped by natural and technological hazards, the exposure of infrastructure and populations, and challenges to resiliency.

Climate change is a major factor. Sea ice is retreating from the eastern side of the Arctic more rapidly than the western side north of Greenland, where an Arctic refugium may be expected to persist for several decades. This thaw has been an enabler of the expansion of infrastructure throughout the Russian Arctic.

On current trajectories of change, routes that cross the central Arctic Ocean and skirt the eastern coast of Greenland, and even routes through the Northwest Passage, can be expected to be routinely navigable in the second half of this century, if not earlier. These routes have the potential to redistribute ship traffic away from the increasingly active Russian-administered Northern Sea route. Furthermore, these routes present alternatives to both the Suez and Panama Canals for major US ports on both coasts.

New northern shipping routes are foreseeable in the second half of this century.

Photo: Unsplash

The diminution of sea ice brings the promise of enhanced access for Greenland’s coastal population. Greenlandic settlements depend on maritime transport for essential goods such as food, fuel, and medical supplies. This critical function is carried out by Royal Arctic Line, a Greenlandic shipping company that holds an exclusive agreement with the Greenlandic government to provide freight services to the country’s remote communities. The company operates a fleet of specialized vessels designed to navigate Arctic conditions, ensuring a stable supply chain even in the harshest months.

As ice-free periods extend, the efficiency and frequency of these resupply missions could improve, reducing costs and increasing reliability for local populations. Existing and planned industrial developments associated with mining and energy could see their operational costs reduce. Furthermore, year-round access could provide new opportunities for fisheries and tourism, and the development of new economic activities.

But this is not without risk – destabilized fast ice and coastal soils threaten structural integrity and indeed safety, particularly in the context of intense polar storms. The thawing of the vast Greenland ice sheet can yield catastrophic ice calving events and contributes to sea level rise.

Mountains and glaciers in Greenland

Photo: Amanda Lynch

Greenland Decides

In the capital, Nuuk, the Greenlandic government operates with ministries, including a Department of Independence, a Parliament (the Inatsisartut) and a Constitutional Commission. Although Greenland remains within the Danish Realm, it has government representations to foreign capitals and to international organizations. The Greenland Self-Government Act recognizes that the people of Greenland have “a right to self-determination under international law.” Chapter Eight, titled “Greenland’s Access to Independence,” states that “Decisions regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland” and that “Independence for Greenland shall imply that Greenland assumes sovereignty over the Greenland territory.”

Perhaps Washington - and Beijing - have overlooked this. And on 28 April 2023, the Constitutional Commission submitted a draft Constitution to the Inatsisartut, which, inter alia, enshrines an Inuit land law perspective—where property is communally owned and thus not subject to alienation. Hence another layer—if President Trump aspires to a deal: about what and with whom?

As Greenlanders go the polls, “Nothing about us, without us” will be on the minds of voters. Since President Trump stated his ambition to acquire Greenland by sale or by force, the election and political discourse among the almost 60,000 Inuit inhabitants of the world’s largest island have acquired a new level of intensity.

Leading up to the elections, Prime Minister Egede has emphasized the goal of independence. Yet a people paving a path to independence might find themselves contemplating the prospect of substituting one colonizer for another. As Inuit Circumpolar Council Chair Sara Olsvig observed, “There is no such thing as the better colonizer.” And there is no gain in being the pawn in a new Great Game.

Dr. Charles H. Norchi is Benjamin Thompson Professor of Law in the University of Maine School of Law, co-Chair of the International Institute for Law, Science & Policy and Contributing Editor to Global Geneva.

Dr. Amanda H. Lynch is the Lindemann Distinguished Professor of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences at Brown University and Chair of the Research Board of the World Meteorological Organization.