US Imperialism in Greenland
Excerpts from the book:
Introduction
A Danish proverb says that accidents rarely happen alone. If we regard classic Colonialism, Neo-colonialism, and economic Imperialism as unfortunate phenomena that explain why peripheral Arctic societies are less developed than the economic centers, the so-called "Arctic Nations", the proverb is justified. The main cause of underdevelopment in the Arctic regions is labor exploitation. Additionally, indirect land grabbing and the plundering of the Arctic's living and non-living resources are common issues. Although not directly related, the proverb gained double meaning after 2024-25.
Beneath empirical observations, two unrelated events reveal a hidden connection. Theoretically, Arctic regions rely on a self-centered system, specifically the economic center.[1] Center-periphery relationships illustrate the core's dominance, especially through Greenland's link to the Danish economic center, along with the rise of a new imperialist power following the Trump Administration's attempt to take over Greenland.
Thus, today's dependency is rooted in a rivalry between two centers of power. The conflict comes from the historical center of Danish paternalist Colonialism and the partial rise of Imperialism after the Second World War, on the one hand, and the apparent emergence of a full-scale Neo-imperialist foreign policy by the USA in the Arctic on the other. What seems new is not that different, because the United States has had unlimited access and control over the military part of Greenland since the agreements of 1941, 1951, and 2004.
The shift in U.S. policy regarding Greenland relates to the effort to assert control over the civilian part of Greenland, which has been self-governed since 2009 but remains under Danish authority in areas like security policies, defense, the monetary union with Denmark, and the use of the Danish currency, the Danish Krone.[2]
Within the framework of a critical realist approach to social scientific analysis, the perceptible and observable surface – the empirical domain - of socio-economic relations in Greenland includes two seemingly isolated events.[3] They essentially form the basis of our actual knowledge of the center-periphery ties and the main understanding of why things are as they are. The factual events show the clash between the two centers that dominate Greenland. The coinciding events of a historical TV documentary on mining in Greenland and Donald Trump's strengthened rhetoric about a U.S. takeover of Greenland both exemplify different forms of colonial and imperialist dominance.
Greenland's White Gold
In February 2025, the Danish Radio (DR), a state-owned broadcaster, aired a documentary titled "Greenland's White Gold" (Orsugiak, Grønlands White Gold).[4] Naja Dyrendom Graugaard, an associate professor of cultural studies, and Marie-Louise Skov Nielsen, a historian, conducted the research behind the broadcast.[5] The analysis focused on the cryolite quarry in Ivittuut, South Greenland, which operated from 1854 to 1987, where large amounts of cryolite were exported unprocessed from Greenland. This period illustrates an economic cycle explained by dependency theory and critiques of imperialism. Such a theory describes the disadvantaged relationship of the periphery with the core, characterized by limited manufacturing, low-wage labor, and unfavorable trade terms, as reflected in exports. The peripheral economy must increase its production to support imports of manufactured, advanced goods. Instead of creating a self-sufficient local economy, the value added in Greenland through rental incomes, wages, and profits mainly accrued in Denmark and the U.S.
The State-Owned Danish Radio (DR) aired the documentary during the 2025 Greenland election campaign, focusing on the relationship between Greenland and Denmark. Donald Trump's stunt in early January 2025 may have led DR to censor the documentary. From a critical realist perspective, it uncovers the actual events behind the surface of the relations between Greenland, Denmark, and the U.S. Both during his first term and just before his second, Donald Trump repeatedly argued that Denmark should sell Greenland to the U.S. or face sanctions, possibly even military action, even though Denmark is a NATO ally (!). Denmark, as a loyal U.S. partner, was caught between the realities of NATO, with the U.S. as a trusted but hegemonic ally, and Trump's "MAGA" and "America First" policies. The Danish government was confused because the U.S. had shifted its foreign policy, reasserting the Monroe Doctrine, which includes Arctic Canada and Greenland as U.S. Spheres of interests. The Danish government may have tried to downplay issues related to Danish Colonialism and emerging imperialism following World War II. Additionally, American imperialism, both before and after WWII, has influenced Denmark's military control. Under Trump, neo-imperialist efforts aimed to gain control over Greenland's civilian sectors. Until now, Greenland's civilian governance has been and still is a matter of self-government from the capital city of Nuuk, remaining under the control of both Greenlandic and Danish authorities.
Shortly after Germany occupied Denmark in 1940, the US Coast Guard took control of the Cryolite Quarry to protect it. The 1941 Defense Agreement established real defense readiness, including a military camp with 400 soldiers to defend the mine against German submarines. During the war, about 150 workers were employed at the mine, and production doubled to roughly 90,000 tons per year. Throughout the war, the U.S. exported chunks of cryolite ore to the United States.
The historical analysis in the documentary criticized both Denmark and the U.S. for colonialism, drawing significant attention because the two economic centers, Denmark and the U.S., had accumulated unprocessed cryolite ore worth billions of Danish kroner (D. Kr) at current prices over 133 years. It is, of course, not possible to precisely determine the total outflow values that have left Greenland. Although the mine was a microeconomic unit, DR framed it as a matter of mainstream economics and national income accounting for a single mining project, which may have, to some extent, influenced Greenland's macroeconomic figures during the period before World War II.
Conventional Danish politicians, economists, and opinion leaders argued that the figures showing monetary outflows of about 400 billion DKK to both the U.S. and Denmark were misleading because they represented total revenues, not value-added or profit figures. Focusing on profits and capital exports is equally misleading in a monetary flow analysis. The extent of the State Ministry's involvement in the cover-up remains unknown. DR reportedly should have initiated an "internal qualified investigation" into the documentary's production process. On February 19, 2025, the documentary was banned and removed from DR after it was aired. The Danish government's hesitation to accept criticism of U.S. imperialism around the time of Donald Trump's inauguration seems to be a valid reason. The Danish government tried to keep a conciliatory tone in its relations with the U.S., rather than fulfilling its duty outlined in Greenland's Self-Government Act. Still, the Danish government hid behind the Greenlandic self-governing administration in Nuuk, issuing vague statements about supporting Greenland without taking a clear international stance in forums like the U.N. Confronted with a utopian military intervention from the U.S., Denmark at least could have responded with similar saber-rattling by deploying naval vessels, fighter jets, and elite troops to Greenland. The EU, often seen as a form of "soft politics," some might call it a "paper tiger," is no substitute for conflict-oriented international diplomacy and negotiations.
Furthermore, right-wing forces in the Danish parliament (Folketinget) find it convenient that the myth of the annual Danish unilateral income transfers, which some call a "gift," is presented simply as a unilateral transfer of income. In other words, the economic relationship between Greenland and Denmark is characterized by an inflow of money, mainly through the block grant, and expenditures from various Danish ministries related to Greenland. Although a large part of the GDP includes the inflow of income, such as the block grant, Greenland's self-generated output from its products and services, and the resulting effects (the income multiplier), all sent back to Denmark, some mainstream economists deny that these monetary flows go both ways. This reasoning, of course, refuses to recognize that Denmark has benefited from the operations of the Cryolite Quarry.[6]
"Orsugiak – The White Gold of Greenland" uncovers the overlooked story of Denmark's extraction of cryolite in Ivittuut, Southern Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat). The documentary reveals new aspects of colonial expropriation, post-war imperialism, and wealth creation in Denmark and other economic hubs by examining the historical power dynamics behind these activities. Ivittuut was one of the few places where naturally occurring cryolite was found. This rare and valuable mineral was used in aluminum production, with Denmark and later the U.S. becoming major suppliers. The exploitation of Greenland through the quarry lasted until the 1980s. While it brought in significant income for the Danish economy through aluminum production outside Greenland, these mining operations had a lasting negative impact on the local Inuit community and the Greenland region, primarily due to lost development opportunities.
The historical period covered in the documentary requires a nuanced approach to the alleged principles of Colonialism and later Imperialism at the "macro level." As we will see below, the period up to World War II shows a paternalistic yet protective strategy that kept Greenland apart from economic Imperialism. Aside from the Cryolite Quarry, the Danish government blocked the free establishment of private capital. Attempts to develop Greenland first appeared with the Greenland Commission of 1950 (G50). However, the documentary effectively uses a case study to challenge the narrative of Denmark as the "benevolent colonialist" and its role as the "economic provider," highlighting the power dynamics where Denmark acts as the dominant center and Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) as the periphery.
The story involves replacing one type of dependency with a new one. The Inuit population of Greenland genuinely aspires to gain organizational and economic independence from outside centers, aiming ultimately to establish a sovereign Arctic microstate in the future. The main issue is the legacy of Danish Colonialism, Danish Etatism, and the rise of imperialism, along with the U.S. neo-imperialist approach rooted in the Monroe Doctrine and George Kennan's strategy of containment, which targets the largest Arctic nation, Russia.[7]
American intermezzo
On January 6, 2025, American businessman Donald Trump Jr. arrived at the new airport in Greenland's capital, Nuuk. Described as a private visit, no meetings with the Greenland government were requested or scheduled. Following Donald Trump's inauguration as the 45th U.S. president, his son's visit reignited the debate over the United States' ownership of Greenland.
The Trump administration announced shortly before Christmas on Donald Trump's social media platform, "Truth Social," that:
For the sake of national security and global freedom, the United States believes that ownership and control of Greenland are crucial.[8]
People might question this statement because the United States already has control over and unrestricted access to Greenland's military regions. Officially, Greenland's defense is managed by the Danish Defense Command, which, on paper, also holds authority over the American Thule base and Greenland's military zones. However, this authority is limited because the U.S. takes command during crises and war. The US Air Force Space Command and the Pentagon operate the Thule base. Although NATO's headquarters in Brussels oversees the Danish Defense Command, it does not control Greenland's defense. Greenland is considered part of the American sphere of influence, as described in the Monroe Doctrine, and no one has challenged that so far.
U.S. President James Monroe was responsible for this defense doctrine, which states that any attack on land within the North American continent is considered an act of aggression by the United States. Later, the doctrine was expanded to include South America, Central America, and the Caribbean.[9]
Meanwhile, on December 23, 2024, Donald Trump discussed the United States potentially taking over sovereignty over Greenland in connection with the appointment of the future American ambassador to Denmark. At a press conference at Mar-a-Lago, Florida, on January 7, 2025, shortly after Donald Trump Jr. and others staged a publicity stunt in Nuuk, Greenland, Trump intensified his rhetoric. His clumsy expansionism involved an offer to buy Greenland. However, by 2025, it wasn't just about buying Greenland, like the 1917 deal involving the sale of the Danish West Indies (the Virgin Islands). If Denmark and the Greenlandic Inuit failed to comply with the 2025 American directive, Washington would take necessary measures to ensure Greenland and Denmark's compliance.
Nevertheless, Donald Trump Jr's visit to Nuuk was both a charm offensive and a classic carrot-and-stick maneuver. Threats and promises against peripheral economies trying to escape imperial influence are at the heart of the relationship between the center and the periphery. The effectiveness of threats in interaction with promises remains less understood. The carrot and stick strategy are a strategic game involving a Manipulator and a Target. The Manipulator — like the Trump Presidency — may or may not honor its promises or threats. The target (Greenland/Denmark), depending on its preferences and beliefs about the manipulator, may resist or comply with demands.[10] A credible promise or threat alone is usually insufficient for bargaining, but when combined, they often succeed at least from the manipulator's perspective.
Donald Trump Jr. invited a local Inuit from Greenland to his hotel for a meal of rye bread, chicken, and salmon. He also gave him a red cap with "Make America Great Again" written on it. It's easy to draw parallels with Victoria Nuland, who handed out sandwiches to right-wing ultranationalists at Maidan Square in Kiev before the U.S. orchestrated an illegal coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government.
Upon arrival in Nuuk on the Trump family's private jet, Donald Trump Jr. claimed he was there only as a tourist. Greenlandic TV news "Qanorooq" reported that the local Trump supporters, led by Jørgen Boassen, invited Trump's son to Greenland. Boassen, who also attended Trump's inauguration with Kuno Fencker of the Independence Party "Naleraq," was not universally popular locally. He gained renewed attention after allegedly being assaulted in a Nuuk bar brawl due to his Trump sympathies.
Before the recent Greenlandic Parliament election, the Naleraq Party sought to immediately initiate negotiations with Denmark on secession, rather than pursuing a gradual path toward economic independence. The self-government law follows a gradual approach; when the Danish government's expenses related to Greenland are fully offset by the value added from Greenland's own production - meaning the block grant to Greenland and ministerial expenses reach zero - then negotiations about economic independence and potential secession from the Danish Kingdom can begin.
Naleraq views full sovereignty for the Greenlandic people over Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) as the natural next step. They aim to establish Greenland as an independent microstate, on equal footing with other countries and small states worldwide. However, Naleraq did not secure enough votes in the most recent election. The results revealed that parties supporting gradual independence dominated. Polls show that most Inuit and Danish Greenlanders oppose aligning with the U.S., but do not necessarily want to remain part of Denmark. For most, independence remains a long-term goal.
Donald Trump's justification for these American "expeditions" to Greenland distorts historical facts. He claims that the U.S. could help many people from Greenland who supposedly want to be protected appropriately and cared for. Despite Danish colonialism in Greenland, there appears to be a failure to understand the relationship between Greenland and Denmark. Danish colonialism in Greenland, apart from the Cryolite Quarry, continued until World War II and served as mentioned as a prime example of paternalistic protectionism aimed at preventing economic imperialism from taking over Greenland. Although there were attempts to open the economy to imperialism after 1950, Greenland remains a state-controlled economy with a small private sector driven by government demand for goods and services. The quality of housing, living conditions, economic and human development, along with the state's unilateral income transfers (the block grant), have fostered a socio-economic society like a Scandinavian welfare state. Greenland ranks as the wealthiest region in the Arctic, at least based on data regarding living conditions.
The idea that the Trump family and his administration should have been invited is, to put it mildly, incorrect; some might even say it's a blatant lie! He still went so far as to say the U.S. was being called on and invited "over there." That call, if it ever existed, can only come from a small portion of Trump supporters, acting as the counterpart to Venezuelan U.S. puppet Juan Guaidó or Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky. The U.S. often uses puppet leaders to infiltrate and destabilize other countries' political systems and economies.
In March 2025, Vice President J.D. Vance and his wife, Usha Vance, visited Greenland. The reactions in Denmark and Greenland to this unwelcome addition to the charm offensive clearly exposed the falsehoods coming from the White House (!). Initially, the plan for high-profile figures close to the President was to tour the main civilian towns of Nuuk and Sisimiut, likely expecting a welcome as liberators. Since that was not the case, a more limited visit occurred when the American vice president traveled to Thule Air Base, located far north of Greenland's two main cities. According to the joint defense agreements with Denmark, this is effectively the military area in Greenland where the U.S. has full control and access.
Greenland's acting head of government, the self-government's chairman Múte B. Egede, called the visit "a clear provocation" and urged the international community to respond. Denmark adopted a symbolic political stance, choosing to hide behind the Inuit self-government rather than actively support Egede's call. For example, Denmark could escalate the issue by bringing it to a relevant international organization, such as the UN. Additionally, Denmark could strengthen Greenland's defenses by sending navy ships to Greenlandic waters, stationing F-16s at Søndre Strømfjord, and deploying elite troops near Thule Air Base. The notion that some Danes view the revised travel plans as a diplomatic triumph for Denmark is bogus.
Boassen's efforts to make Greenland part of the U.S. failed because the people opposed it. It was clear that Boassen and others' blind admiration for President Trump lacked support among the Greenlandic population. Through polls, demonstrations, and debates, local voters expressed widespread opposition to the visit; most did not want an American presence and viewed it as an unwelcome, oppressive restriction on their right to self-determination. A poll showed that 85% of respondents rejected the idea of Greenland becoming part of the United States.
In an early interview, J.D. Vance postulated that:
"You've got probably 55.0000 people living on Greenland, who are not happy with the Danish Government. They have great natural resources there; they have an incredibly bountiful country that the Danes aren't letting them develop and explore. Of course, Donald Trump would take a different course if he were the leader of Greenland."[11]
Furthermore, later during his visit to the Pituffik (Thule Airbase) in March 2025, he claimed:
"You have not done a good job by the people of Greenland, you have underinvested in the people of Greenland, and you have underinvested in the security architecture of this incredible, beautiful landmass filled with incredible people. That has to change! What we think is going to happen is that the Greenlanders are going to choose through self-determination to become independent of Denmark. Then we are going to have a conversation with the people of Greenland."[12]
When J.D. Vance criticizes Denmark's disregard for security in Greenland and the Arctic, that criticism also applies to the United States, which signed the Defense Agreement of 1951 with Denmark, thereby assuming a shared responsibility to defend Greenland alongside Denmark. Since the late 1950s, the U.S. has continuously closed bases or transferred them to Denmark or Greenland:
• "Blue East Two" in Ikateq and "Blue West One" in Narsarsuaq were closed in the late 1940s.
• Narsarsuaq Air Base was shut down in 1958.
• Søndre Strømfjord Air Base (now Kangerlussuaq Airport) was transferred to Greenland in 1992. However, a clause stated that the U.S. has the right to reopen it in a crisis or war.
• Grønnedal (Kangilinnguit), a naval station, was handed over to Denmark in 1951 and closed by Denmark in 2012.
Previously, the U.S. had 17 military bases or installations and over 10,000 troops stationed in Greenland. Today, the U.S. operates the Thule Air Base, formerly Pituffik Space Base, with about 200 personnel.
It's a false hope that joining the U.S. automatically leads to independence and economic prosperity, especially since Americans supposedly want to develop regions like Greenland. Imagine Greenland's status changing from a Self-Governing Territory within the Danish Kingdom to a tribal community or reservation inside the U.S. In that case, it would likely mean a lower standard of living for the Inuit and Danish Greenlanders. Furthermore, this change would not eradicate colonialism and Imperialism. Vance's claim that Denmark has neglected Greenland's development is far-fetched. It may have been prudent for Mr. Vance to resolve internal issues prior to expressing criticism of external parties. The living conditions of Indigenous peoples in the U.S. suggest anything but a bright future for Greenland's Inuit population if it becomes a U.S. reservation.
According to the U.S. National Library of Medicine, more than a quarter of the American Native Americans population in the lower 48 states and the Native population of Alaska live in poverty.[13] It is worth noting that this number is more than twice the size of the general population in the United States. Native American families in Alaska with children are even more at risk of living in poverty. Statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau show that 27% of families with children from Native Americans in the lower 48 and Alaska Native communities are living in poverty; 32% of those with children under age 5 are at risk. These rates are again more than twice as high as in the overall population and are even higher in some other tribal communities. There are also disparities in education and employment.
Overall, fewer individuals within the Native American population of the lower 48th and Alaska Native populations across all states hold a high school diploma or its equivalent (71% versus 80% for the general population), and fewer have earned a bachelor's degree (11.5% versus 24.4%). These educational gaps start early, with Native Americans and Alaska Native children gradually falling behind their non-Inuit peers from kindergarten through fourth grade. Challenges persist throughout their school years, characterized by higher dropout rates and lower grade retention.
Native Americans also have a lower labor force participation rate than the general population. At the same time, family unemployment ranges from 14.4% overall to as high as 35% in some reservation communities.[14] The poverty and unemployment observed among American Native Americans in the 48 lower states and Native communities in Alaska are related to broader economic development challenges in Native communities, including geographic isolation and the availability of primarily low-wage jobs.
The ongoing impoverishment and proletarianization of the American middle class, once the backbone of the country's economy, mark a decline in the standard of living. Over half a million people are homeless, living in temporary shelters, also known as transitional housing, or sleeping in abandoned buildings, tents, and cardboard boxes not meant for habitation. Key causes of homelessness include high rents, unemployment, poverty, and low wages.
Overall, 66.7% of the homeless population in the United States consists of single individuals, while the remaining 33.3% are families. Recently, homelessness has increased nationwide by nearly 1%. This includes unaccompanied children and young adults, long-term single adults, and those in vulnerable homeless situations. Poverty remains a serious issue in the U.S., affecting not only minorities but also residents of rural areas. Improving education and health is essential for helping individuals and families escape both absolute and relative poverty. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the U.S. has the highest poverty rate among the 26 most developed nations, at 18%, compared to Denmark's 6.5%. In 2022, 11.5% of Americans lived in poverty, a figure still notably lower than the roughly 20% in 1960. However, recent data from the US Census Bureau shows a slight upward trend in poverty rates.
Claiming that Greenland is free of unemployment, social problems, poverty, homelessness, and educational issues would, of course, be an unfounded exaggeration. To determine whether J.D. Vance's assertion has empirical support, a comparative analysis of living conditions in the Arctic is needed. The available sources here are limited, but some are accessible. The Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic, conducted by Birger Poppel and Thomas Andersen, revealed notable differences in living conditions between the Arctic region and the rest of Europe. Conversely, in the Arctic, despite variations, there were still some basic commonalities in traditions and living conditions worth comparing across the regions. The project's comparative approach examined the living conditions of Arctic populations in Greenland, Canada, Alaska, and Russian Chukotka. One key conclusion was that the study identified differences in Inuit living conditions, which contradicts Vance's unsupported claims, as Greenland, as mentioned, is the most developed area in the Arctic.[15] The Russian Inuit were the population group in the Arctic that suffered the most, according to the study. A poll showed that 17 percent of Inuit declared themselves "very satisfied" with their standard of living, while only 1 percent in Chukotka agreed to that view. On the contrary, only 2 percent in Greenland declare themselves "very dissatisfied" with the standard of living, while in Chukotka, 40 percent stated they are "very dissatisfied."
……………………………………………. The former coalition government until 2025 limited U.S. economic and strategic imperialist ambitions in Greenland, as major American corporations linked to the military-industrial complex, oil, IT, and other sectors have historically sought to secure capital access and influence Arctic policy. Imperialist interests in Greenland, including statements by the Trump administration concerning strategic Arctic territories, should be understood within this broader economic and political context.
Following the 2025 elections, a new coalition comprising the parties Demokraatit, Inuit Ataqatigiit, Siumut, and Atassut signaled a shift toward promoting foreign investment in Greenlandic resources. The coalition emphasized that "raw material extraction is a central part of Greenland's future economy." It highlighted the need to attract large-scale external investment while establishing screening mechanisms to ensure projects align with national interests. These measures suggest an effort to integrate Greenland into global resource networks, while also advancing strategic and economic goals of external powers, particularly the United States.
Access to Greenlandic resources goes beyond just mineral wealth. Oil and gas reserves, key raw materials, and additionally Arctic fisheries offer chances for U.S.-linked multinational corporations to strengthen their influence. While such growth can bring in capital, it also risks decreasing Greenland's economic self-reliance and local control over a self-reliant development, investments, and resources, highlighting ongoing issues of U.S.-led Arctic imperialism.
Conflicts and military developments in the Arctic, Central and Eastern Europe, as well as along Russia's southern border, should be viewed within the broader historical context of the U.S. containment strategy, which was initially aimed at the Soviet Union. Developed during the first Cold War, this imperialist approach continues today to weaken Russian sovereignty, gain access to, control with, and grabbing Arctic resources, exploiting its skilled, low-cost labor.
George F. Kennan first outlined this strategy in 1947 under the pseudonym "X," advocating the containment and regionalization of Soviet power to promote its eventual collapse. Modern U.S. and NATO policies follow the same logic. In 2023, the U.S. Helsinki Commission proposed dividing Russia into independent regions, referring to it as "decolonization." These efforts hide their actual goals - access to energy, land, and natural resources, justified through a moralized rhetoric of "freedom and democracy" that ignores theories of dependency, Imperialism, and Colonialism.
NATO's eastward expansion after the collapse of the Soviet Union reinforces the Kennan approach. Military bases, missile systems, and political interference in post-Soviet countries like Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia show a systematic effort to contain Russia while pushing Western strategic and economic goals. The Arctic and Greenland are a prime example of this strategy at work. Mikhail Gorbachev once saw the region as a "zone of peace," but it has become an area dominated by militarization. Control over Arctic territories and waters provides access to hydrocarbons, critical minerals, and new shipping routes, making the Arctic a key area for subordinating Russia to global imperialist power.
In summary, the persistence of Kennan's containment strategy shows that modern Arctic conflicts are not isolated or spontaneous but are part of a long-term effort involving militarization, resource control, and strategic dominance, leading to today's second Cold War.
Finn Lynge highlighted the structural limits on Greenlandic independence. While self-determination remains legitimate and is a central topic in Greenlandic politics, geopolitical and demographic realities significantly restrict the chances of full sovereignty. Greenland's two million square kilometers of ice, fjords, and mountains occupy a critical role in Arctic security, acting as a strategic "pearl" that demands constant monitoring, advanced military infrastructure, and force projection. Lynge described this as the "Achilles' heel" of independence or the tension between the goals of decolonization and geostrategic needs.
Contemporary debates over sovereignty often overlook these constraints. With fewer than 60,000 residents, Greenland lacks the population, economic resources, and coercive power necessary for independent defense or foreign policy. Its quasi-statehood - defined by significant domestic self-governance combined with structural dependence on external powers - ensures that the United States and NATO remain key players. Even if Greenland fully seceded from Denmark, it would still be part of the North Atlantic security framework, with Washington wielding de facto authority over defense and strategic choices.
The Greenlandic case illustrates the wider challenge faced by small nations and self-governed regions located in strategically important areas. While independence is viewed as essential for postcolonial growth, it is often constrained by global political systems and imperialist economic interests. Therefore, debates over Greenlandic sovereignty are interconnected with issues of strategic reliance, great-power competition, and the persistent security concerns in the Arctic.
Regardless of Greenlandic voters' national affiliations, such preferences alone do not lead to genuine political and economic independence. Even if Greenland officially becomes a sovereign state and adopts the most effective models for self-sufficiency and formal autonomy, the dominance of U.S. and global imperial powers will still limit true sovereignty. In this context, traditional approaches to independence, focused on statehood or national identity, remain insufficient.
Creating an alternative, locally rooted economic model that operates within the global capitalist-imperialist system while maintaining economic independence from subjugation offers a practical path forward. A new traditional economic model is participatory, cooperative, and protected from external economic dominance, enabling Inuit to pursue meaningful economic self-determination. Sectorization and the preservation of traditional practices suggest a system of economic self-management—local democratic businesses—that could form the basis for citizen-led local political and economic self-governance, fostering a societal practice rooted in autonomy and resilience without requiring full political sovereignty at the global level.[1]
https://publishnl.bookmundo.com/site/?r=userwebsite%2Fbookdetails&id=22040745&fbclid=IwY2xjawPUeyFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE5SUpqWWZCb3FYSWh0T0Z3c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHucDInRRVF46kT27q Beyond Greenland's White Gold
[1] Gorm Winther: Conceptualizing Participatory and Democratic Organizations pp.115 – 202, in Gorm Winther and Ívar Jónsson (ed): Human Security Through the New Traditional Economy in the Arctic. Routledge, 2024Beneath the veil
[1] Samir Amin: Empire of Chaos, New York: Monthly Review Press
[2] The era of so-called post-colonialism started in 1979 with a Home-Rule system within the Danish Kingdom. Some would label that self-government, which it was supposed to be. However, the terminology has a different understanding in Greenland, as it refers to a step forward in the decentralization process. The term "Self-government of Greenland" allegedly took the decentralization process further by transferring areas hitherto under the control of Danish ministries to the Self-government in Greenland. Furthermore, in relation to the Igaliku agreement, the local government in Nuuk should have at least a say in matters of foreign policy and defense matters.
[3] The paradigm of Critical Realism is explained in Gorm Winther and Jan Holm Ingemann: "Cooperative Societies as a Heterodox Approach. The Case of Greenland", Gorm Winther and Ivar Jonsson (eds): Human Security Through the New Traditional Economy in the Arctic, pp 205 f.f.
[4] Historically, the Danish State Minister (the Prime Minister) is labeled as the "Minister of the Press". The ministry controls so-called "overarching and fundamental issues of importance to the conditions of the press". However, legislation in this area is the responsibility of the Minister of Culture. Denmark's Radio has recently been criticized for its bias in its news and documentaries.
[5] The White Golf of Greenland, https://vimeo.com/ondemand/482304
Internet Archive, Grønlands Hvide Guld, 2025 https://archive.org/search?query=subject%3A%22Gr%C3%B8nlands+hvide+guld%22,
Laria Sartini and Anne Chahine: "Orsugiak – The White Gold of Greenland" – A New and Old Story of Danish Colonialism and Extraction in Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland), 2205
https://www.rifs-potsdam.de/en/blog/2025/04/orsugiak-white-gold-greenland-new-and-old-story-danish-Colonialism-and-extraction?fbclid=IwY2xjawJ_DipleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFvZjNjRjJpZlhhdVB6b3FNAR6hn0DD0D_Z2gzU9UqRm7372O3zsCRfkB6Pwlf3LI4maqncv7izZBpcNM5avw_aem_GafS3OGX2bgv4bGPdKr9PA
[6] Gorm Winther. Hvad ved vi egentligt om produktiviteten I Grønland, Samfundsøkonomen nr. 1, april 2007, Martin Paldam: Misbrug af faglig ekspertice, Kamikposten, 2002, https://www.kamikposten.dk/global/maskinrum/rutine/leksikon.aspx?tag=kilde&folder=hvadermeningen&sprog=da&punkt=Martin%20Paldam&udvalgt=2002041401. Gorm Winther: Er den gal med hørelsen Paldam, Kamikposten 2002, https://www.kamikposten.dk/global/maskinrum/rutine/leksikon.aspx?tag=alleartikler&folder=hvadermeningen&sprog=da&udvalgt=2002041402. Gorm Winther: Hvad er god grønlandsforskning for en størrelse?, Kamikposten 2000 https://www.kamikposten.dk/global/maskinrum/rutine/leksikon.aspx?tag=kilde&folder=hvadermeningen&sprog=da&punkt=Gorm%20Winther&soegestreng=&udvalgt=2000011201
[7] Etatism – some label it "Statism" or State Capitalism – refers to a social formation where the State controls and regulates the economy. This spans over the central command model of a planned economy to different types of decentralized socialist planning systems and a regulated market capitalist system.
[8] Ewan Palmer: Donald Trump Says Buying Greenland is 'Absolute Necessity', Newsweek, Dec 23, 2024. https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-says-buying-greenland-absolute-necessity-denmark-ken-howery-2004938
[9] Finn Lynge: Independence for Greenland, with a foreword by the Chairman of the Government of Greenland, Jonathan Motzfeldt, Arctic Information, 1998.
[10] Frank C. Zagare: The Carrot and Stick Approach to Coercive Diplomacy, International Journal of Development and Conflict pp. 105 – 115, 10(2020) 105–115 https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~fczagare/Articles/Carrot%20and%20Stick.pdf
[11] USA's vicepræsident: Danmark er ikke en god allieret
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=J.D.+Vance+Danmark+har+fors%C3%B8mt+Gr%C3%B8nland&atb=v445-1&iar=videos
[12] JD Vance accuses Denmark of neglecting Greenland, https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/jd-vance-accuses-denmark-of-neglecting-greenland/vi-AA1BS1Cu
[13] Michelle Sarche and Paul Spicer: Poverty and Health Disparities for American Indian and Alaska Native Children: Current Knowledge and Future Prospects https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2567901/
[14] In Alaska, the indigenous people, including Inuit, are called natives. In Greenland and in Arctic and subarctic regions in Canada, i.e., Nunatsiavut, Nunavut, Nunavik, the New Northwest territories, and Yukon, they are called Inuit. In Chukchi, Russia, the indigenous people are called Chukchi or Eskimos.
[15] Slica: Arctic Living Conditions, Living Conditions and Quality of Life among Saami, and Indigenous Peoples of Chukotka and the Kola Peninsula. Norden, TemaNord 2015:501, 2015 https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:790312/FULLTEXT02.pdf, Karsten Sommer: Interview with Birger Poppel: Arktiske levevilkår undersøgt, KNR 2006 https://knr.gl/da/nyheder/arktiske-levevilk%C3%A5r-unders%C3%B8gt, Jack Kruse et.al.: Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic (SLiCA) in V. Møller et al. (eds.), Barometers of Quality of Life Around the Globe, C Springer Science Business Media B.V. 2008. Thomas Andersen and Birger Poppel: Living Conditions in the Arctic, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 58, No. 1/3, Assessing National Quality of Life and Living Conditions 2002, pp. 191-216