The United States is making renewed attempts to exert control over Greenland, which have once again laid bare Washington’s ingrained mindset, marked by greed, a double standard and blatant hypocrisy.

Cloaked in the rhetoric of “security” and “strategic interests”, the US ambition not only tramples on international law and Denmark’s sovereignty, but also risks demolishing the postwar international order painstakingly built on respect for borders and sovereignty.

No wonder Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told the media there is a “fundamental disagreement” with the US over Greenland after talks at the White House on Wednesday, adding that the US leader was insisting on “conquering” Greenland, which was “totally unacceptable”.

In a show of support for Denmark, France, Sweden, Germany and Norway announced on Wednesday that they would deploy military personnel as part of a reconnaissance mission to Greenland’s capital Nuuk.

Greenland’s status as an autonomous territory of Denmark, which is clearly defined under international law as well as Denmark’s domestic laws, is recognized by the United Nations and other international organizations. Yet the US has repeatedly floated the idea of acquiring or annexing the world’s largest island, while simultaneously increasing its military footprint and strategic pressure in the region.

The hypocrisy is glaring. The US accuses other countries of “violating international norms” by “changing the status quo by force”, yet it is openly talking about acquiring another country’s territory by “force if necessary”. The US’ stated ambition to seize control of an ally’s territory once again demonstrates that, in the eyes of the US, alliances are tools to be exploited. The land-grabbing statements of the US have already sent shock waves through NATO, of which Denmark is a founding member.

The double standard on display is mind-blowing. When it suits the US’ geopolitical needs, the “will of the people” is loudly championed; when it does not, it is conveniently ignored. The voices of Greenland’s population, who have repeatedly stressed that their future is not as US citizens, are disregarded as irrelevant. This selective application of principles reveals that what truly matters to Washington is not “democracy” or “human rights”, but its own narrow ends.

The US administration is covetous of Greenland’s resources, but the Danish territory’s strategic location is another driving factor. This seemingly irresistible urge to seize the territory of another country is essentially another manifestation of the US bid to reinforce its hegemony.

It should not be ignored that if the US does get control of Greenland it will militarize the Arctic and North Polar region. As climate change accelerates the melting of ice and opens new shipping routes and resource prospects, the region has become a focal point of global attention. The US succeeding in its ambition runs counter to the shared interests of humanity, as it would turn the Arctic into a geopolitical arena for power projection and military rivalry.

The North Polar region, like the South Polar, should be a zone of peace, cooperation and scientific research, not a new frontier for the US’ zero-sum game. For decades, the Antarctic has stood as an example of international collaboration, where countries put aside geopolitical rivalries to advance scientific understanding and protect a fragile environment. The Arctic deserves the same approach.

All peace-loving nations should remain vigilant and firmly oppose any attempt to annex or coerce another country’s sovereign territory under whatever pretext. The international community must send a clear message that the era of territorial expansion and imperial thinking is over, and that no country, however powerful, stands above international law.

History has shown that cooperation is the only viable path forward. In the face of climate change, environmental degradation and common security challenges, the Arctic should become a stage for global collaboration for the common good of humanity.

Respecting sovereignty, upholding international law and promoting win-win cooperation are not optional choices, but essential responsibilities. The US administration should uphold the principles Washington so often preaches — before it inflicts further damage on global stability and its own credibility.

?