The Geopolitical Stakes of Greenland in the Era of Transatlantic Redefinition

The Geopolitical Stakes of Greenland in the Era of Transatlantic Redefinition

The controversy sparked by Donald Trump’s statements—where he controversially and destabilizingly suggested the use of force to annex Greenland—illustrates a new paradigm on the global chessboard. Beyond a mere diplomatic whim, these remarks reflect the United States’ desire to refocus its strategy around economic and security interests amid a redefinition of transatlantic ties. This article seeks to analyze, from various perspectives, the complexity of the issues surrounding this Arctic territory, both from a geostrategic and an economic standpoint.

 Territory with a Unique Status and Identity

Greenland, the first and largest island in the world, is home to approximately 56,000 inhabitants and occupies an atypical historical position in Europe. With its status as an “overseas country and territory,” it falls under a specific legal framework that applies to thirteen territories linked to the member states of the European Union—most notably Denmark, France, and the Netherlands—without being fully subject to European law.

In 1979, Greenland obtained enhanced autonomy—a status reaffirmed in 2009—which granted it greater leeway. Today, even though the population, predominantly Inuit, aspires to complete independence, the historical bond with Denmark endures, since the latter retains control over foreign affairs and defense.

Strategic and Economic Pursuits in a Changing Arctic Context

Greenland’s geographical position, at the heart of a rapidly transforming Arctic, makes it a top priority for numerous international actors. The progressive melting of the ice cap, a consequence of climate change, not only opens up new maritime routes but also makes accessible vital energy and mineral resources—such as gas, oil, uranium, and rare earth elements. These potential assets have attracted the attention of both regional and global powers, in a context where securing supplies and exploiting resources have become strategic priorities.

However, the enthusiasm generated by this potential is tempered by several challenges:

• Costs and Technical Constraints: Extreme climatic conditions and the inadequacy of local infrastructure result in particularly high extraction costs.

• Environmental Risks: Intensive exploitation could further weaken already vulnerable ecosystems and permanently alter the traditional way of life of the Inuit populations.

• Socio-economic Challenges: Transitioning to an autonomous economy in a context of limited labor and uncertain investments remains a risky proposition for Greenland’s future.

The Redefinition of Transatlantic Alliances: Between American Imperatives and European Constraints

On the diplomatic front, Greenland emerges as a nodal point in the redefinition of transatlantic alliances. While the United States pursues an expansive strategy—evidenced by the reopening of a consulate in Nuuk in 2020 and the establishment of key military structures (notably the Thule base)—Europe has been slow to consolidate its presence in the region.

This discrepancy is notably reflected in the recent opening, in 2024, of a European Union office in Nuuk, a belated acknowledgment of the Arctic’s strategic importance. Nevertheless, the European approach remains largely fragmented and driven by national interests, particularly among the Nordic countries, whereas the American vision embraces the entire northern Atlantic zone—from Greenland to Norway, including Iceland and the British Isles.

Conclusion: A Paradox with Multiple Challenges

Today, Greenland embodies a major geopolitical paradox. Geographically isolated, it sits at the heart of international covetings; internally autonomous, it remains closely tied to external powers; and while rich in potential resources, it must contend with significant environmental and economic challenges. In a context where the absence of a specific legal and security framework for the Arctic leaves many uncertainties, the future of this territory—and by extension, that of global energy security—will depend on the ability of international actors to forge new, balanced alliances and to establish regulations adapted to the realities of a changing environment.