What once sounded like a political joke has re-emerged as a serious geopolitical debate: the possible annexation of Greenland. In recent weeks, renewed negotiations have revived President Trump’s long-standing interest in acquiring the Arctic Island, pushing questions of sovereignty, security, and strategic power back into the global spotlight. Currently, discussions between Denmark and the United States continue over Greenland’s future control. Even here in Hawaiʻi, many still face challenges rooted in the U.S. overthrow of the former Hawaiian Kingdom. Although Greenland holds significant strategic value, the political, ethical, and diplomatic costs of annexation ultimately outweigh its potential benefits.
Greenland isn’t just a mostly uninhabited, cold island in the middle of nowhere; it is geopolitically valuable, including rare mineral reserves. Greenland’s strategic location in the Arctic places it between North America and Europe, near Russia and China’s Arctic region. With climate change the Arctic region is providing more access to potential natural resources, along with many more opportunities for shipment access to the Arctic passages for commercial shipping and military vessels.
Photo 2
Its high latitude also provides for missile launch warnings. Dr. Mikkel Olesen, a Danish foreign policy and diplomacy researcher, told CBS News earlier this month that “there aren’t Russian and Chinese ships all over the Arctic, but there are Russian planes, and there has historically been a lack of situational awareness in the region.” However, controversy arose originally after Trump looked into taking the arctic island by force, and backed it up with the same claims of security. Those opposing annexation, including Denmark, have been open to higher military presence without the need for a takeover.
Greenland has an extremely high and growing poverty rate of 17.4%, higher than all Nordic countries and neighboring Denmark. Several argue that annexation could bring a surge of American infrastructure and with a possible ‘piece’ of the Golden Dome on the island, the struggling economy could improve. However, many disputing the takeover testify that annexation could lead to loss of sovereignty, indigenous rights, and lead to a possible NATO crisis. An aggressive pursuit of Greenland is viewed as a “final straw” for NATO, potentially triggering Article 5 against the U.S. and causing a fatal rupture with European allies. Article 5 states that an attack against one NATO member is viewed as an attack against all. A recent poll has shown 84% of Greenlanders have long-term goals of full independence from Denmark.
Dr. Taylor Stephens, a global politics teacher at ‘Iolani, warns that Greenland and Denmark have long been central to NATO cooperation, explaining that they are “pillars of NATO and this post-World War II global order.” If the United States were to aggressively pursue annexation, it could fracture the same alliance system that has secured American influence for decades. The mere public statements of taking over Greenland by force have managed to threaten the bonds that have held for well over a century within NATO and provided international security for nearly 32 countries. Dr. Stephens also talked about how annexation by the U.S. is seen as a “downgrade” to a territory status, which could mean “taxation without representation” and a loss of the rights Greenlanders currently enjoy.
Many small territories and countries have felt initial pressure from large and militarily powerful nations to be annexed or give up control voluntarily or by force, Hawai’i once one of them. Hawaii was acquired largely to serve as a Pacific base during the Spanish-American War. Similarly, acquiring Greenland is viewed as a way to secure natural resources and expand U.S. Arctic influence. The potential annexation of Greenland is seen as a revival of a “long-dormant” tradition of American expansionism, with Hawai’i and Alaska often talked about as similar, earlier examples of utilizing distant, resource-rich areas. While Hawai’i was annexed with a congressional joint resolution rather than a treaty, modern proposals for Greenland often involve a “buy” situation, similar to the 1867 Alaska purchase, instead of outright seizure.
While Greenland’s military and strategic value is undeniable, full annexation has proved to be neither necessary or wise. Its location in the Arctic and importance to NATO already provide the United States with significant security advantages through existing alliances. However, aggressively pursuing ownership would risk destabilizing NATO, and damaging long-standing diplomatic relationships. In addition, that move disregards the will of Greenland’s natives and current residents. Denmark has already shown openness and lots of support to expanding U.S. military cooperation without transferring sovereignty, proving that the security concerns can be resolved without undermining Denmark’s control of Greenland. Global leadership today should look more like respect for alliances and sovereignty. For these many reasons, the political and diplomatic consequences of annexing Greenland outweighs its strategic benefits.