Four Ways to Understand the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland Dispute
The recent debate over U.S. interest in Greenland offers a lens to understand broader dynamics in international relations, particularly in a world where strategic power often drives policy. Analyst Ian Manners identifies four ways to interpret the situation, which also shed light on the emerging multipolar order.
First, a geostrategic approach highlights Greenland’s location in the Arctic as critical for military, shipping, and resource considerations, making it a focus for global powers. Second, a historical perspective situates U.S.–Denmark relations within decades of defence agreements and past territorial interests. Third, a realist lens interprets the actions as a reflection of the principle “might makes right,” where stronger states pursue control over weaker regions to secure strategic advantages. Fourth, a normative or ethical approach questions the legitimacy of territorial claims and the treatment of local populations, such as Greenland’s autonomous government.
Together, these frameworks contextualise the Greenland debate and illustrate the complexities of power, law, and ethics in today’s multipolar world.
