U.S. Greenland Claim and Its Impact on Arctic Politics

Source: The post “U.S. Greenland Claim and Its Impact on Arctic Politics” has been created, based on “U.S. Greenland Claim and Its Impact on Arctic Politics” published in “Indian Express” on 23rd January 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper-3- International Relations

Context: Greenland is an autonomous territory under Danish administration and has significant strategic importance in the Arctic region. Recent indications of possible American control over Greenland have raised serious geopolitical concerns. Such a development can affect NATO unity, strengthen Russia and China, and alter Canada’s security outlook.

Impact on NATO

1. NATO functions on the principle of collective security under Article 5 and mutual respect for sovereignty.
2. A US takeover of Greenland would violate these foundational principles of the alliance.
3. Denmark may invoke Article 5, which would lead to an unprecedented internal conflict within NATO.
4. Such a situation may weaken trust and cooperation among member states.
5. The credibility and effectiveness of NATO may be seriously undermined.

Strategic Gains for Russia and China

1. Internal divisions within NATO would directly benefit Russia, especially during the ongoing Ukraine conflict.
2. A weakened alliance would reduce strategic pressure on Russia in Europe and the Arctic region.
3. China is expanding its Arctic presence through economic investments and military cooperation with Russia.
4. Joint military exercises near Alaska indicate growing strategic coordination between the two countries.
5. Therefore, American action may unintentionally strengthen its major rivals.

Existing US Presence in Greenland

1. The United States already operates in Greenland under the 1951 defence agreement with Denmark.
2. It earlier maintained several military bases in the region.
3. These facilities can be revived if required for security purposes.
4. Existing arrangements are sufficient to safeguard American strategic interests.
5. Therefore, territorial takeover is unnecessary and unjustified.

Domestic Political and Economic Drivers in U.S.A

1. Some influential business leaders view Greenland as an important economic opportunity.
2. They are interested in rare earth minerals, real estate, and strategic projects.
3. President Trump’s background as a real estate developer influences his expansionist approach.
4. As a result, strategic decisions may be influenced by commercial considerations.

Implications for Canada

1. US control of Greenland would geographically surround Canada.
2. This situation would increase Canada’s strategic vulnerability in the Arctic region.
3. Canada has begun debating the need for stronger defence capabilities.
4. Some experts have suggested reconsidering the country’s nuclear policy.
5. Canada’s traditional security posture may therefore undergo major changes.

Risk of Nuclear Proliferation

1. Weakening of NATO may encourage countries to seek independent nuclear deterrence.
2. Germany and Poland may reconsider their dependence on collective security.
3. Japan and South Korea may also rethink their nuclear policies.
4. Such developments would weaken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
5. This situation may trigger a global nuclear arms race.

Challenges

1. Challenge of Alliance Fragmentation: A conflict between NATO members would weaken the institutional unity of the alliance. It would significantly reduce confidence in collective security mechanisms.
2. Challenge of Legal and Diplomatic Disputes: A territorial takeover would violate international law and established sovereignty norms. It would lead to prolonged diplomatic tensions and the possibility of economic and political sanctions.
3. Challenge of Strategic Instability in the Arctic: Increased militarisation in the Arctic region would raise the risk of military confrontation. Competition over natural resources and strategic sea routes would intensify.
4. Challenge of Arms Race and Militarisation: Countries may increase defence spending and expand their nuclear and conventional military programmes. Arms control and disarmament agreements may weaken over time.
5. Challenge of Marginalisation of Smaller States: Denmark and Greenland’s political autonomy may be seriously undermined. Smaller NATO members may feel insecure and politically marginalised within the alliance.

Way Forward

1. Strengthening Diplomatic Engagement: U.S.A, Denmark, and other NATO members must prioritise continuous diplomatic dialogue. All disputes should be resolved through peaceful negotiations and mutual consultation.
2. Upholding International Law: Territorial integrity and sovereignty must be respected by all countries without exception. The United Nations Charter and international conventions should guide state behaviour.
3. Reforming and Reinforcing NATO: NATO must strengthen its internal consultation and dispute-resolution mechanisms. Clear and transparent protocols should be developed for managing internal disagreements.
4. Promoting Cooperative Arctic Governance: Arctic states should strengthen multilateral platforms such as the Arctic Council. Environmental protection and sustainable development should be given high priority.
5. Implementing Confidence-Building Measures: Transparency in military activities and deployments should be ensured. Joint exercises, data sharing, and communication channels can reduce mutual mistrust.
6. Strengthening the Non-Proliferation Regime: Major powers must reaffirm their commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Diplomatic initiatives should be strengthened to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons.

Conclusion: A US takeover of Greenland would undermine NATO unity, strengthen adversaries, and destabilise regional security. It would also increase nuclear proliferation risks and weaken international norms. Long-term stability can be ensured only through diplomacy, cooperation, and respect for sovereignty.

Question: What are the implications of a possible US takeover of Greenland for NATO, Russia, and Canada? Discuss the challenges and suggest a way forward.