An Analysis of the Sovereignty Game over Greenland: From the Perspective of Securitization and Desecuritization

I.Problem Statement

(I)Greenland in Arctic Geopolitics

In recent years, the United States has intensified its geopolitical  competition in the Arctic. In particular, the issue of the U.S. forcibly purchasing the island has been rehashed  since the beginning of Donald Trump’s second term. Its practices of "economic coercion" and military  deterrence have transcended the traditional geopolitical framework. The strategic and systematic infiltration  and projection of influence constitute a de facto contest for Greenland, potentially eroding and restructuring  Denmark’s absolute sovereignty over the island. Trump’s "island purchase" bid is not an isolated  incident. On the one hand, it carries forward the U.S. strategic tradition of seeking direct control over the  island since the end of World War II; on the other hand, it represents the projection of the Trump  administration’s "America First" strategy in the fields of geopolitics and international  security.

(II)Security Studies Centered on Greenland

Greenland’s increasingly prominent strategic value has gradually made it the  focal point of Arctic security. However, relevant research has mostly focused on hard security or soft security  issues in the Arctic, with insufficient attention paid to Greenland’s subjectivity and political  characteristics. Drawing on the securitization theories of the Copenhagen School and the Paris School, this  paper takes the securitization and desecuritization of Greenland as the research object and establishes the  following analytical framework: 1. Securitizing Actor: The United States accomplishes the securitization of  Greenland through military deployment, resource control, and the narrative of threats from China and Russia. 2.  Securitization Audience: Denmark maintains formal sovereignty over the island through a strategy of compromise,  while consolidating its regional influence within the NATO framework. 3. Desecuritizing Actor: The Greenland  Self-Government weakens the priority of security issues through economic diversification and diplomatic  autonomy.

(III) Sovereignty as the Core Issue

The sovereignty game is not only the core of the Greenland issue but also a  key factor shaping the Arctic geopolitical and security landscape. For the United States, securitizing the  Greenland issue constitutes a core strategic logic. This move aims to legitimize its sustained military  presence, while acquiring sovereign control over the island remains a long-term strategic objective. For  Denmark, accepting the U.S. securitization of Greenland helps uphold its legal sovereignty over the island,  address decolonization challenges, and preserve its status as an Arctic state. For its part, Greenland employs  desecuritization as a means to gradually advance its independence process in pursuit of full sovereignty.

II.The Separation of Military and Legal Sovereignty: The Securitization of  Greenland since World War II

(I)U.S. Security Interest Considerations

The DanishUnited States Defense Agreement of Greenland signed in 1941  explicitly stated that Greenland was vital to safeguarding the peace and security of the American continent.  During World War II, Greenland served as a critical transit hub for North Atlantic convoys, merchant fleets, and  aircraft traveling between North America and Europe, and securing the island was indispensable to the conduct of  naval and air operations. In the Cold War, Greenland became part of North America’s forward defense system, with  its military installations acting as key nodes for the U.S. ballistic missile defense system and surveillance  against transpolar Soviet strikes. Today, Greenland constitutes an important component of the U.S. Arctic  Strategy. The U.S. Department of Defense released its Arctic Strategy in 2024, which outlines plans to  strengthen military control over Arctic shipping routes and position the Arctic as a base for projecting  military power to the AsiaPacific.

(II) U.S. Military Control and Sovereignty Claims over Greenland since  WWII

1. 1939–1945: U.S. Military Deployment to Greenland during World War II

The United States has a longstanding strategic interest in Greenland and has  repeatedly sought to annex or purchase the island in history. After the outbreak of WWII in 1939, the proposal  to buy Greenland became a topic of highlevel U.S. deliberations. Following Germany’s invasion of Denmark in  April 1940, U.S. geopolitical and strategic interests in the island took concrete form, and the United States  incorporated Greenland into its sphere of influence under the Monroe Doctrine. When Germany extended its war  zone to the east coast of Greenland in March 1941, the Roosevelt administration promptly decided to deploy  military forces on the island. Subsequently, the United States bypassed the Danish government and signed an  agreement with Denmark’s Ambassador to the United States to obtain temporary control over Greenland, launching  the process of securitizing the island.

2. 1945–1991: U.S. Control over Greenland in the Cold War

After World War II, the United States further tightened its grip on the  island. In 1946, the Truman administration offered to purchase Greenland from Denmark for gold equivalent to 100  million U.S. dollars. Following Denmark’s outright rejection, the two sides signed a new agreement in 1951 amid  the Korean War, granting the United States full military access to Greenland and responsibility for the island’s  defense. The Danish government, in exchange for accepting the securitization and militarization of Greenland by  the United States, temporarily preserved its sovereignty over the island. Although the U.S. military presence in  Greenland fell short of full sovereign control, Washington’s use of the island as a strategic node in its  forward defense system resulted in the separation of military and legal sovereignty over Greenland, amounting to  a de facto partial encroachment on Greenland’s sovereignty.

III.Resecuritization and Desecuritization of Greenland

(I)Great Power Competition and U.S. Resecuritization of Greenland

1. Securitizing Actor: Strategic Interest Drivers of the United States

U.S. policy toward Greenland is subordinate to Arctic strategic rivalry and  resecuritization. In 2019, the Trump administration shifted its stance on Arctic affairs and multilateral Arctic  institutions and mechanisms, focusing on addressing what it regarded as a growing Russian military threat and  China’s diplomatic and economic "infiltration" in the Arctic. Its response centered on launching a  diplomatic offensive and resecuritizing the Arctic, framing the activities of China and Russia in the region as  security threats to justify a strengthened U.S. military presence on the island.

2. Securitization Audience: Denmark’s Calculations

Denmark’s security policy evolution since the Cold War has prioritized  alignment with allies over confrontation with adversaries. Specifically, Denmark’s policy is guided by two core  considerations: first, strategic compliance with the United States to preserve its sovereignty over Greenland;  second, strategic bandwagoning, as Greenland provides leverage for Denmark to pursue other political objectives.  By leveraging U.S. interests in Greenland, Denmark secures U.S. commitments to defend its mainland territory,  engaging in security free-riding.

3. Typical Events of Securitization

In 2018, China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) participated in  bidding for airport expansion projects in Nuuk, Ilulissat and other localities, sparking U.S. concerns over the  security of its military deployments. This prompted Washington to pressure the Danish government to intervene,  marking the starting point of U.S. resecuritization of Greenland. Under U.S. pressure, the Danish government  intervened in the airport expansion plans on the grounds that the Chinese bid conflicted with its foreign and  security policies, ultimately leading CCCC to withdraw from the tender.In a speech at the Arctic Council  Ministerial Meeting in May 2019, then U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signaled that U.S. Arctic security  policy was once again framed primarily around military actors and U.S. national interests, anchored in the logic  of global great power competition, laying the groundwork for U.S. military deployments in regions including  Greenland.

(II)Greenland’s Independence Process and Desecuritization

1. Micro Autonomous Entity and Economic Dependence on Denmark

Lacking sufficient self-sufficiency capacity, Greenland relies heavily on  annual fiscal grants from the Danish government. Under the Greenland Self-Government Act, Denmark provides an  annual grant of 3.4 billion Danish kroner, accounting for roughly half of Greenland’s government revenue and  approximately 20 percent of its GDP. Beyond fiscal support, Greenland also depends on Denmark’s human capital  and education system, creating profound political and socioeconomic asymmetries.

2. Enhancing Autonomy via Desecuritization

The desecuritization strategy adopted by the Greenland Self-Government in  domestic affairs—including defense—centers on elevating its standing in foreign affairs. Control over foreign  affairs not only symbolizes autonomy but also enables the self-government to expand exports, attract foreign  investment and generate other economic gains, thereby advancing desecuritization.The Greenland Self-Government  lacks both the capacity and the will to reverse the securitization drive led by the United States: legally,  ultimate sovereign authority over Greenland’s defense rests with Denmark. Moreover, a direct challenge to the  United States would not only forfeit existing economic benefits but also to some extent jeopardize external  support critical to its long-term independence aspirations. Against this backdrop, Greenland has increasingly  leveraged the U.S.-Denmark-Greenland trilateral relationship to bolster its autonomy and secure direct material  gains.

3. Pursuing Opportunities for Economic Self-Sufficiency

Low economic diversification, heavy external dependence, population aging and  labor shortages pose major challenges to Greenland’s sustainable development and self-sufficiency. For  Greenland, a viable path to reducing economic dependency lies in developing new industrial sectors, including  oil and gas exploration, mineral extraction, tourism and hydropower projects.Given the island’s substantial  mineral reserves, mineral development has emerged as both the foundation and symbol of its economic  self-sufficiency drive, with profound implications for the attainment of full sovereignty. To this end,  Greenland has positioned itself as "an attractive and reliable partner in the mineral resources  sector," seeking to enhance its role in global mineral governance, attract investment and advance economic  self-reliance.

IV.Multilateral Game over Greenland’s Sovereignty

(I)Renewed Dispute over the Purchase of Greenland

In August 2019, Trump raised the idea of purchasing the entire island of  Greenland once again. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen dismissed the proposal as "absurd",  prompting Trump to cancel his planned state visit to Denmark. Following the start of his second term, Trump  publicly stated his desire for the United States to acquire the island. In January 2025, he noted that, in light  of U.S. "economic security needs", he would not rule out the possibility of seizing control of  Greenland through "military or economic coercion", and claimed that Greenlanders could vote for the  island’s independence or accession to the United States. Shortly after Trump’s remarks, the U.S. House of  Representatives introduced the Make Greenland Great Again Act, authorizing the President to pursue negotiations  with the Kingdom of Denmark to secure the acquisition of Greenland.

(II)Accelerated Independence Process of Greenland

The Danish government reaffirmed its rejection in response to Trump’s relevant  statements. Although the Greenlandic government and its people have clearly opposed U.S. sovereignty claims, a  more fundamental challenge for Denmark is that the Greenland Self-Government is accelerating its push for  independence. Security and defense—core symbols of sovereignty—have long been the focal point of contention  between Greenland and Denmark. In particular, Greenland has advanced its independence drive through a strategy  of desecuritization, engaging in a "sovereignty game" with Denmark within the constitutional-legal  framework shaped by the Constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Greenland Self-Government Act. In the  overall logic of its sovereignty contest with Denmark, Greenland’s strategy is to desecuritize relevant policy  areas to gain greater control and advance sovereign political autonomy.

(III)New Models of Sovereignty Contestation

After its attempts to forcibly purchase or coerce control over Greenland met  setbacks, the United States has shifted its strategy from "direct sovereignty competition" to a  composite model integrating resource control, military presence and sovereignty governance.First, it has taken  resource extraction as an entry point to intensify control over Greenland’s resources, thereby further shaping  the island’s independence prospects and sovereign space.Second, under the U.S.-Denmark Defense Cooperation  Agreement, it has further clarified the right of U.S. forces to conduct military activities both on and off  designated bases, while granting U.S. personnel judicial immunity.Third, it has sought de facto sovereignty over  Greenland through flexible arrangements—for instance, promoting Silicon Valley capital to replicate "free  city" experiments on the island, in an attempt to circumvent sovereignty disputes through corporate  self-governance.Overall, the U.S. model of contesting Greenland’s sovereignty is aligned with its Arctic  geopolitical imperatives, aiming to achieve greater control over the island through sovereignty ambiguity and  resource linkage.

V.Concluding Remarks: The Future Trajectory of Greenland

On the whole, the sovereignty contest over Greenland—and the interplay and  rivalry between securitization and desecuritization—will persist and unfold along three major trends: 1. The  United States will continue to use securitization to consolidate its Arctic hegemony and pursue full-spectrum  control over Greenland by various means. 2. Denmark will face starker dilemmas between sovereignty devolution  and NATO obligations, with its relationship with Greenland remaining tense. 3. Greenland will seek a transition  to full sovereignty via desecuritization, yet its prospect of achieving independence through mineral resource  development remains uncertain. 

In addition, the Russian factor cannot be overlooked in assessing the outlook  of the sovereignty game over Greenland. For Russia—the largest Arctic nation—the Arctic is an issue bearing on  national security, great-power status, legitimacy, prestige, and national development. U.S.-Russia relations,  particularly their competition and cooperation in the Arctic, will also serve as a critical variable shaping the  future of the Greenland issue.

(Authors: Li Jie, Professor, Center for Studies of Ethnic Groups in Northwest  China & School of Politics and International Relations, Lanzhou University; Gao Wenbo, Ph.D. Candidate,  Center for Studies of Ethnic Groups in Northwest China, Lanzhou University)