Denmark is in panic mode as the United States threaten to overtake Greenland. While smaller contingents of Danish soldiers have been sent to the island as a show of support, European allies have sent more.
International law, self-determination, and sovereignty have all recently become urgent. Politicians in Dane speak of principles, boundaries, and the dangers of great power politics.
Denmark appears surprised, not as though it is panicking, which is what is striking.
Greenland has a strategic bent. It has always been. In a more difficult global order, it is favored due to its location, resources, and military value. The island’s renewed interest is neither a coincidence nor a momentary overreaction. It serves as the logical conclusion of an imperial worldview that prioritizes power, access, and control over international norms’ formalities.
Denmark is uneasy about the situation in Greenland because of the threat itself. It serves as the reflection in the mirror.
Denmark has been a trustworthy partner in advancing that same imperial worldview elsewhere for decades. It firmly sided with the US militarily and diplomatically. Under the guise of security, values, and alliance loyalty, Denmark engaged in conflicts that altered entire regions. The abstractions of geopolitics suddenly become apparent as Danish territory is subject to the same imperial logic.
Denmark must confront this irony.
Denmark is well-versed in debates that concern Greenland. That is important sovereignty. That the territories are not commodities. That applying international law indefinitely is illegal. These ideas were notably absent from Denmark’s considerations when it joined the Iraq invasion, a war that was launched without a legal mandate and was quickly sparked by false claims.
These arguments were also weakened in Afghanistan, where the conflict ended with exhaustion and the return to the status quo rather than stability. They almost completely vanished in Libya, where Danish aircraft had a major influence on Muammar Gaddafi’s regime’s fall. A shattered state, characterized by militias, chaos, and human trafficking, followed.
Denmark’s involvement in Syria was a part of a larger Western intervention, both direct and indirect. A prolonged proxy war with disastrous effects on people’s lives and regional stability was the result of a popular uprising.
As necessary, each of these interventions was framed. Each was depicted as a moral obligation. Each case was defended by a global rules-based system. Each in turn contributed to the erosion of the very standards that Greenland and Denmark currently invoke.
This contradiction can’t be ignored in Palestine.
Israel is a close ally of Denmark, but the country’s political leadership has remained remarkably restrained as Gaza has been reduced to rubble. Denmark’s response to the threat of genocide has been cautious to the point of silence despite international legal experts, humanitarian organizations, and UN bodies’ warnings. The demand for accountability has decreased. There has been a delay inoral clarity.
Danish industry is still mired in the machinery of war at the same time. F-35 fighter jets, which have been a key component of the bombardment of Gaza, are still supplied by a Danish defense company. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should he enter Denmark, but Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen declined to provide a specific response when pressed on whether international arrest warrants would be enforced.
Law is constrained. Principles are flexible. A world where the rule of law is determined by power has long been restored through Denmark.
Imperial violence has been practiced elsewhere for many years. to people in other places. The effects were exported. destabilized regions Mass exodus Rapid entanglement the ongoing devaluation of international institutions. Europe largely rejected the fallout as being related to its own political choices, though it largely absorbed it. No exceptions were made in Denmark.
That distasteful distance is broken by Greenland. Gaza exposes the moral foundation that underlies it.
Not unfairly, Denmark is currently experiencing. It’s exposure.
The arguments that were once used to justify Middle Eastern intervention are now being used in a more global context. strategic necessity Security concerns. global competition These ideas are not novel. They are merely being used in a direction Denmark didn’t anticipate.
The limits of moral selectivity are revealed in this particular instance. International law cannot be defended only when necessary. In the Arctic, sovereignty cannot be revered and relinquished elsewhere. When global power dynamics change, small states cannot rely on principles they helped to undermine.
The implications are significant for Europe as a whole. A relationship with an empire does not guarantee its protection. No autonomy is produced by loyalty. A continent that tolerates the encroachment of international law will eventually experience homelessness.
Greenland is more than just a territorial issue. It’s a calculation.
The irony is completely lost. Is it still uncertain whether Denmark and Europe will ultimately choose to take their lessons?
