Trump says he wants to take Greenland. International law says otherwise

One of United States President Donald Trump’s more startling claims since taking office for his second term – and there have been many – is his insistence that the US will take control of Greenland.

Both prior to taking office and since, Trump has spoken about a desire for the US to acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory that is part of Denmark. This revives a proposal he floated in 2019, and is now being advanced with serious intent.

Trump’s interest in Greenland is framed around US security. The island is strategically located in the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) Gap. The gap gained prominence during the Cold War as an area where Soviet nuclear submarines could operate in the Atlantic Ocean proximate to the US and its NATO partners. Denmark’s limited naval capacity meant these Soviet submarine incursions were uncontested.

Washington has always appreciated the strategic significance of Greenland. It was used during the second world war as a US military staging point due to its relative safety from the European theatre of war and its capacity as a stopover for aircraft to refuel.

Later, during the Cold War, the Thule US Airbase was constructed on its northwest coast, later becoming the Pituffik Space Base.

Trump is particularly concerned about Russian and Chinese ships operating offshore near Greenland in the Arctic Ocean, and with ensuring US access to rare earth minerals on the island.

All of these are legitimate US security and strategic interests. It is often forgotten that the US is an Arctic nation by virtue of Alaska, and Greenland is adjacent to North America.

However, Greenland is not terra nullius ripe for American colonisation. It is recognised as Danish territory. Any dispute over a Danish claim to the island was resolved by an international court in 1933, and since that time Denmark has overseen Greenlandic affairs without challenge. Any suggestion Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is contested has no foundation.

While Denmark has been a colonial power, there has been an active process underway to grant the 57,000 Greenlanders increased autonomy from Copenhagen. Home rule has been granted, a legislature has been created, and a road map exists for self-determination that may eventually see the emergence of an independent Greenland.

Seeking to honour the responsibility Copenhagen feels for ushering Greenlanders through this process, Denmark has made clear that Greenland is not for sale.

The most breathtaking aspect of Trump’s Greenland territorial ambitions has been the refusal to rule out the US using economic or military means to acquire it.

This ignores the fact that Greenland is part of Denmark (a NATO member) and that indigenous Greenlanders possess a right of self-determination. Moreover, any use of US military force to take Greenland would be in violation of both the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty on which NATO is founded and the 1945 United Nations Charter.

Respect for territorial integrity was one of foundations on which the UN Charter was built. The intention of the UN’s founders during the San Francisco Conference was to ensure military force could not be used to acquire territory through an act of aggression resulting in the annexation of territory.

Article 2 of the charter reflects this core principle. Its violation has repeatedly been seen as an egregious breach of international law. Iraq’s 1990 invasion and annexation of Kuwait and Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine are examples of the international community uniting to condemn blatant uses of military force for territorial gain.

Other than Denmark, its Scandinavian neighbours and some NATO members, Trump’s Greenland territorial ambitions have been met with diplomatic silence. What is taking place behind closed doors and in the foreign ministries of US allies and partners can only be imagined.

For Australia, this raises fundamental issues regarding the US alliance. Would Australia be prepared to stand beside the US if it used its economic and military might to acquire Greenland?

Australia has a bipartisan position of both supporting the American alliance and the “rules-based” international order on which the UN is based. AUKUS is founded on these assumptions. Any US economic or military aggression over Greenland may force Australia into making a choice between America or the rule of law.