The European Union’s recent move to coax Greenland into increased economic cooperation, particularly in terms of resource extraction, is a thinly veiled attempt to make inroads into what is set to be the stage for a compelling geopolitical struggle. There is a hidden element behind this seemingly straightforward economic move: Greenland’s potential autonomy in the future also holds massive security implications. The small population of 65,000 residing on the world’s largest island has over the past few years advocated for independence from Denmark. However, what seems to be a relatively localised issue actually hides simmering international tensions, which could likely cause a rat race among global powers for increased influence over Greenland. After all, it contains the resplendent lure of vast untapped resources while also serving as a potential gateway to the Arctic.
The Rocky Relationship between Greenland and Denmark
The crux of the issue really began about a millennium ago. The story goes that an Icelandic delinquent, Eriksson the Red, was sent to the island in exile. Realising the vast swathes of empty space (warmer at the time) had potential, he circulated this information back home. Armed with curiosity, the ever-enthusiastic Norsemen began sending expeditions. A slew of settlements came up, many religiously influenced by Norway’s adherence to the church, eventually setting Christianity on a collision course with the population that had expanded towards the north of the island—the Inuit. Although the Viking presence on the island would fizzle out, these endeavours were eventually cited as historical justification for Denmark’s colonial project in the 18th century. Funded by the king, the Alchemist-Pastor Hans Egede had undertaken a mission to spread Lutheran beliefs across Greenland. In reality, this served as a smokescreen for Danish merchants to fill their pockets with the vast natural resources that lay ripe for the taking on the island. With time, this two-fold approach became more evident, as the monopolisation of trade on the island by the Royal Greenland Trading Department in 1776 was synchronous with an increased push for Christianization of the Inuits. Indeed, so goes the age-old colonial strategy of matching economic exploitation with claims of “civilising” native populations. Even after World War 2, subtle forms of colonial dominance persisted, with accusations that Danish elites fuelled a belief in the exiguous agency of the island’s residents.
However, the discourse regarding Greenland’s own culture and autonomy inadvertently took stead towards the end of the 20th century, culminating in the devolution of certain functions away from the Danish government, resulting in “home rule status” being provided in 1979. The following decades saw an increased push to galvanise upon this, with the 2009 “Act on Greenland Self Government” essentially placing most tenets of economics and welfare in the hands of the regional government, with Copenhagen desperately grasping onto decisions relating to security and foreign policy. The gradual unravelling of this process resulted in the 2023 draft constitution, meant to spearhead Greenland into a new era of independence. An era signifying cultural and economic autonomy, with a parliamentary republic and no Danish monarchy looming over the 90 percent Inuit population. If only it were so simple.
The Complicated Question of Independence
If Greenland were to go ahead and push for complete secession, this would by no means be a smooth-sailing process. For starters, the glaring elephant in the room is the fact that the Danish Government annually provides a grant of approximately half a billion euros to Greenland, a whopping sum covering over half of Greenland’s public budget. Cutting this off overnight would be catastrophic in a similar vein to post-Soviet shock therapy. The transition has to be a phased one, and even then, fine-tuning the details will be logistically cumbersome.
The search for alternative sources to make the economy tick does yield some options, but these all have limitations. Growing the fishing industry, which has been a staple for them throughout history, is a lucrative but insufficient option. People are used to a high standard of living, and one of the preconditions for secession has been to ensure no reduction from this standard. Current domestic industries will likely be insufficient to meet this expectation. This is exacerbated by a lack of infrastructural development, with railroads, roads, and other forms of transportation significantly lacking. Their marked remoteness and lack of self-sufficiency would not help this situation and would eventually make them excessively dependent on imports. What can, however, fulfil these gaping deficiencies is the subject of much contention: mining and extraction.
As the effects of global warming tear through the island, reducing ice cover by approximately 100 billion metric tonnes annually, the ground yields new evidence of vast mineral deposits. Like moths to flames, major corporations have swarmed towards the prospect of fresh sources to exploit. While this would definitely be a way out for Greenland from an economic perspective, this remains a rather unpopular proposition. The last elections in 2021 raged primarily around the issue of rare earth and uranium mining in Kvanefjeld (under an Australian firm). Allegations that projects such as these would cause significant environmental degradation and would incur the risk of radioactive exposure. While striking a balance between economic interests and natural conservation could be a way forward, the staunchly anti-mining coalition government renders legislation that strikes a genuine compromise unlikely. Thus, mining also does not seem like an immediately feasible solution, which brings us to more political considerations… Can Greenland turn to others for help?
Greenland’s potential role in the competition to militarise the Arctic
The 2023 draft constitution contained a free association, essentially signalling that an independent Greenland could initially place some degree of dependence on some external actor. Such a proposition is attractive for many.
In 2019, there was an odd controversy when Donald Trump admitted that the USA was considering buying Greenland, likening it to a real estate sale. While this is not exactly a feasible venture given the importance of sovereignty in contemporary international law, there is nonetheless some interesting information to be extracted from it. If Greenland were to become independent, the USA would more than likely come knocking at their door for increased strategic cooperation. They would not even be starting from scratch, given that there are existing American military installations, including the large Thule air base present on the northwestern edge of the island. The reason behind Greenland’s importance is simple. The melting Arctic can be easily militarised through access from the island. New polar routes would pit Russia and the USA in uncomfortable proximity, making it essential for both sides to make up ground quickly.
At the same time, neglecting China from this discussion would also be premature, despite its physical distance. Hypothetically, if an independent Greenland opted not to join NATO, this would provide China and Russia with the impetus to make headway into influencing their economies and policies. Confronted with an opportunity to make the first move in consolidating control over the northern sea route, as well as the vast oil and energy resources along it (potentially 10–30 percent of the world’s undiscovered reserves), neither major power would be likely to hold back. In particular, being able to implement the polar sea rout, would prove to be extremely handy for China’s economic expansion.
Thus goes the tale of a brewing competition between major powers, set to take place in a region that could prove to be the most prominent geopolitical arena of the coming decades, with questions of autonomy, military, trade, exploitation, and secession all melding together. At the centre of it all lies peaceful, serene Greenland.
