Greenland’s sovereignty and territorial rights are protected under the constitution of Denmark and the legal jurisdictions of international law that have recognized the rights of the people being part of a sovereign country. But despite all the legal protections and rights, President Trump’s allegations of his need of controlling and taking over Greenland is a dispute that has been growing over the past few days, specifically after President Maduro’s situation has been under scrutiny by the United States government.
It is no coincidence and surprise that Greenland’s geopolitical location and its proximity to the region is the subject of the latest developments, turning the matter into a huge public debate that everyone wants to be part of. Either as a protector or as a contributor in cutting it down and having a piece of the sweetness. But regardless of it all, the conflict is heavily backed up by the NATO, that troops are being deployed and ready to defend Greenland.
But among all the speculations, President Trump’s recent reports and statements about the importance of having Greenland due to security measures and stability has been a matter of conduct. Greenland dos not share political borders with America to make it a national security concern for the states and the region. Which makes the national security statements more difficult and less relevant. It is true that from a historical perspective during the World Wars and even the Cold War, the U.S. placed a nuclear infrastructure and military base in Greenland. However, that is not a vital factor to claim and reconsider taking the country back when it was never legal and geopolitical part of the American regional map and territories.
The security measures and military infrastructure claims are all based and hidden under the umbrella of economic prosperity and development for the United States. And there’s no other way to do it than link the protection side with the economic need of it. Under the recent American government’s administration, the President has set his sights on the island for economic reasons that would add a lot into the American economy. Greenland is known to be rich with minerals, and that was the first phase of claiming ownership rights of the island. Not only that, but with the season changes of the country, the economic routes that are based on railroads connecting regions and countries with one another, tend to melt and clarify the status of the geological connection. Making it much easier to transfer and maintain stability through it.
Yet again, that is not a justification that people would consider to be part of . For, Greenland’s economy is a matter of the country and its sovereign state of governance. And being part of the political and economic calculation without a country’s consent is another form of modern colonialism. A term that no academic and historian would ever want to live and be part of, for the consequences of the past are still a matter of fragility and dispute that have not been set and cleared out. And repeating the same situation in the present day, through political instability would turn the tables around, causing a new phase of a long-term Cold War.
Despite the current state of affairs and how people are divided, President Trump stated that his target to take over Greenland is not based on economic activity and objectives, he drew a fine line of reasoning and solidified his point and position that it’s still based on security measures. For a fact it is a matter of principle within the security measures of the political field, which has been one of the greatest causes of the economic rivalry between Russia, China and the U.S. The involvement of the later world powers influenced the American administration to take part of the dispute and get it all, leaving no space for any kind of cooperation to even a mutual agreement between Greenland. The bias between the trio extended to further outcomes and the results are clearly shown within the recent developments between the U.S. and Greenland. However, that is not a justification, because rivalry and political competition between the three world powers is a contradiction of who will last and who will take, without taking any kind of accountability and reflection of the people within the region of North America and Greenland.
Hence, by taking over Greenland and gaining the full authority over its borders and natural resources, the economic development and system of the country would easily flow hand in hand with the political transition. It’s a matter of getting hold of the first to ease the way for the economic growth that is the sole purpose and objective of the matter.
But when the question of whether the idea of security measures are appropriate to take as a legal challenge and justify the use of force through it is justifiable enough?, the answer would definitely come in with a good form of a rejection. Because it is clear that President Trump’s concerns are mostly about the involvement of Russia and China who are already having an unstable fragile relationship with the United States. And having them take over the whole region and its benefits is not something that would be accepted, and there’s no other way to deal and address this political and geopolitical concern but through security measures and threats that do not exist.
Justifications are legal and vital through the authority of the international courts, and If there’s a conflict or a threat over border security and other regional concerns that would lead to a clash of forces, diplomatic and military actions would be used when necessary. However, claiming the right and legitimacy to take over without a rise of context or a real exiting threat that have been not been proven, debunks the claims and takes the situation into other perspectives that might lead to complete isolation when the dispute has been extended with no agreement between them both.
Original article
Comments