President James Monroe declared the Western Hemisphere closed to European colonization in the early part of the 19th century. American policymakers continue to invoke a variant of this nearly two century old framework to justify interventions into the affairs of sovereign nations that are against the established and accepted international norms, under the UN charter. Venezuela is a very recent case in point.
Immediately after the Venezuela action of capturing
President Maduro and his wife in the early morning hours of Jan 03, through a
surgical military operation, the US focus shifted to Greenland, the world’s largest
island that is larger in land area than Mexico, an autonomous territory within
the Kingdom of Denmark. USA has been keen on acquiring this island, since 1867,
but has not been successful, though it has operated from multiple bases in
Greenland during the second world war, and thereafter. Presently, it operates from
one base, Pituffik space base under the 1951 Defense of Greenland agreement
with the Kingdom of Denmark. Article II of the agreement specifically grants
great flexibility to the US to “establish and/or operate defense areas” as needed
as per NATO defense plans.
Over the years, Greenland has become increasingly
important strategically; global warming and melting of Arctic ice have majorly contributed
to the strategic importance of this once ‘left alone’ frigid island. New
shipping routes leading to shorter transit times in the northern hemisphere;
rare earth minerals critical to the automotive, semi conductor, renewable energy,
and defense industries; as also potential for offshore oil and gas exploration,
are some of the prominent reasons. Great powers have taken note; China and
Russia have been active; China has attempted to invest in Greenland’s
infrastructure, fishing, tourism, and mining projects; Russia has re-opened and
militarized its cold war era bases and expanded its icebreaker fleet. These
facts are red flags for Washington.
Greenland’s importance to global geopolitics cannot
be contested, as its geography, resources, and position at the gateway between
the Arctic and Atlantic oceans makes it of strategic interest to the US, as also
its NATO allies; its position makes it indispensable for early warning missile
defense, space surveillance, and control of Arctic sea lanes. Nonetheless, while strategic importance is a key
consideration, it does not confer legal entitlement and thus must be balanced
with adherence to international norms and treaty obligations.
Recent statements given by President Trump, and his
administration are, “we need Greenland for national security purposes”; “all
options are on the table”, including the military option. Some statements even
imply that the US action could proceed “with or without” Danish approval. Taken
together, the language suggests an anxiety with regards to timing; about rivals;
and about losing control of a region that Washington perceives as indispensable
to its national security. It increasingly reflects a world view of the US Administration
that geography, not alliances, defines security, as also that sovereignty is
negotiable, if strategic interest is at stake. This is much against
international norms, as laid down by the UN charter, as also against the NATO
obligations.
Greenland’s government and its people are clear:
Greenland is not for sale; its people must determine its own future.
Greenlandic leaders also reaffirmed their allegiance to Denmark and NATO, underscoring
the fact that unilateral transfer of sovereignty is non-negotiable; some European
nations, including Denmark, have openly supported this position. President Trump, on
Jan 17, stated that he would charge a 10% import tax starting in February on
goods from eight European nations because of their opposition to American
control of Greenland; the rate would climb to 25% on June 01, if no deal was in
place for “the complete and total purchase of Greenland” by the US. European
capitals were quick to condemn Trump’s coercive tactics; leaders from Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, France, UK, Germany, Netherlands and Finland issued joint
statements warning that tariff threats and territorial demands risk towards a “dangerous
downwards spiral” in transatlantic relations.
While the strategic importance of Greenland cannot
be denied, the US security needs in the Arctic can be met through deepened
cooperation, with Denmark, Greenland, Canada, and other NATO partners. The way
forward to thwart adversaries like China and Russia is to strengthen Western influence
by building frameworks for defence, and by responsible resource development in
this environmentally fragile region.
Coercive threats, including territorial demands
and tariffs, threaten to weaken alliances at a time when unity is of paramount
importance. The US must choose cooperation over coercion if it hopes to
continue to lead rather than isolate its closest partners, which includes
Canada.
Comments