How to cite this journal: Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post, ISSN: 2628 6998, https://worldmediation.org/journal/
EDITORIAL NOTE *
This contribution is a conflict analysis report rather than an article, and its structure has been retained. It concerns a dispute that was unresolved at the time of writing in spring 2025, and its assessment of the parties reflects the author’s own perspective; this journal’s editorial position is neutral as between the states concerned. The section on technocracy advances an interpretation of the motives of a serving administration on the basis of one adviser’s family history; it is the author’s own reading and is not presented here as established fact.
ABSTRACT
The following report examines the contemporary conditions and status of the diplomatic and rhetorical conflict between the current presidential administration of the United States, the Kingdom of Denmark, and the affected people of Kalaallit Nunaat, Greenland. It also analyses both the underlying and the evident issues, interests, conflicts, and baseline positions of the parties, in order to understand the drives behind certain intentions as well as the challenges that may prevent or escalate the situation.
KEYWORDS
American exceptionalism, annexation, environment, expansionism, natural resources, presidential administration, rare earth elements, rhetoric, stakeholders, stewardship, technocracy
CONFLICT PROFILE
Primary parties: the United States of America; the Kingdom of Denmark together with Greenland.
Secondary parties and observers: the European Union; Canada; the United Nations.
Duration of dispute: December 2024 to the present, spring 2025 at the time of this report.
Geography: Arctic island, northern hemisphere.
Levels of conflict: interpersonal, economic, intergroup, goal oriented, interstate, expansionist, ecological, resource based.
Interests and positions of the United States: mining of rare earth elements and the amplification of national prestige.
Interests and positions of Denmark: national sovereignty and the long-standing status quo.
Interests and positions of Greenland: autonomy together with environmental and socio-cultural preservation.
Status: still developing; limited implications following the Greenlandic elections.
Potential for escalation: medium to high; rhetoric and stated intention of annexation continue.
Potential for resolution: high, particularly if military assets are engaged as part of a settlement.
MAIN CORPUS
Adjacent cases of the twenty-first century thus far
Conflicts over land or resources have been an inherent human phenomenon since our earliest developments. Such conflicts in the twenty-first century are concentrated in areas of ambiguous autonomy, status, or national alignment, sometimes lacking sufficient international consensus for the formal recognition that would mitigate encroachment by other states. They also differ in the resources desired and in how these play into global market demand.
A first comparison is Hong Kong’s reframed status as a special administrative region, as the People’s Republic of China seeks to benefit from the territory’s property investment, commercial services, and ports (Khederlarian 2020: 31, 108 to 109). A second is Crimea, where the Russian Federation’s complex history with the peninsula stretches back centuries (Khederlarian 2020: 23, 71), the government having long-standing interests in its port cities, its minerals and oil, and its position in the Black Sea. A third is Western Sahara, where Morocco has been operating for phosphate rock, abundant fisheries, and salt (Smith 2018: 10). The situation in Kashmir presents some adjacent circumstances.
The natural resources at question
It is important to step back and assess the physical materials at the heart of this. The world’s largest island contains not only resources traditionally desired on world markets, such as iron ore, oil, zinc, and uranium (Wilson 2016: 31), but also rare earth elements in continuing demand. Four of these, dysprosium, neodymium, praseodymium, and terbium, are needed for the magnets essential to wind turbine generators and advanced vehicle motors (Vaillant 2024). Lithium, niobium, hafnium, and zirconium are key components for batteries and other applications, likely for digital hardware processing.
Another important factor is the difficulty of processing. The first issue is that such deposits are located in environmentally delicate areas: national parks, preserved forest, Arctic areas with melting glacial shelves, and areas with endangered fauna or indigenous communities. The second is that the industrial processing of these minerals emits an extraordinary quantity of greenhouse gases. A number of these circumstances apply to the Greenlandic case.
Power dynamics
Despite a long-term economic and military security alliance through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the power dynamics here are asymmetrical while rooted in the power of contract.
The United States has taken unilateral approaches or set its own priorities within its international partnerships for a long time, on the view that it must be the primary provider or leader in almost every relevant international endeavour. This is the case with the Alliance and its network of military installations, including in Denmark. While guaranteeing protection and support, this also creates complications when paradigm shifts occur within the American government. There is also the basic circumstance that the American military apparatus is very much larger than that of Denmark, and more experienced after decades of continuous expeditionary operations.
Preliminary build up
The United States established a series of subsidiary treaties and arrangements with various allies in the wake of the Alliance. In the case of Greenland this was achieved in 1951, the parameters being extensive military access for troops and assets in order to counteract any potential Soviet manoeuvres in the polar region.
The foundation for this dispute lies in the American government’s growing priority for exclusive resource access, alongside the renewed emergence of an ultranationalist current on the world stage. Beyond the desire for military access, the government has developed a perceived need to expand its access to vital material components. The need for rare earth elements has been growing since the beginning of the digital age. However, this was greatly amplified by the emergence of the People’s Republic of China as a leader in both obtaining and processing such elements. Seeking these deposits is one key challenge; another is the placement of processing facilities outside the reach of certain American environmental regulations.
It is also important to assess the changing nature of the American federal government. The last decade shows a swing between neoliberal and ultranationalist positions. These swings carry further complications, as official or informal policies towards allies begin to lose their guaranteed longevity. The current administration, carrying this ultranationalist movement, amplifies the resource question with an older school of realism.
The role of technocracy in the current administration’s aspirations
To understand the motivations behind the current administration’s geographic and economic aspirations, one may take into account the background of a key figure. The businessman and adviser Elon Musk has a range of ideas about how the United States should proceed in the twenty-first century, and the author suggests that some of these notions have older antecedents. His grandfather, Joshua Haldeman, was a member of the technocratic movement that emerged in the 1930s.
Like many of the fringe ideologies to emerge from the interwar period, technocrats envisaged a remade social order in which precise social engineering, communications technology, and technical enterprise would be the driving forces, removing politicians and financiers from the provision of goods and services and transferring these to scientific, technical, and engineering concerns (The Technocrat 1937: 3). More strikingly, technocrats advocated that the Technate should encompass all territories from South America to the Arctic, in order to secure the associated natural resources while creating a self-sustaining unit (The Technocrat 1937: 3).
The author’s reading is that aspects of technocracy have merged with anti-globalist elements in the current American leadership, and that the rhetoric concerning Canada and Panama corresponds with the resource and geographic goals of that older movement. In the case of Greenland, on this reading, the aspiration is for rare earth elements and similar mining products needed for processing hardware, advanced missiles, electric vehicles, and consumer electronics. These elements are distributed across the exterior coastline of the island (Thrane, Kalvig and Keulen 2014: 305). Although the United States has had military access to the island since 1941, with revisions in 1951 (Petersen 1998: 2 to 3), the scope has been that of alliance security concerns and never much in economic terms.
The administration states that its interest in Greenland is a matter of defence against Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic. The author’s contention is that identifying an older ideological current behind the annexation rhetoric may allow the international community to respond more accurately to this dispute.
The United States: unilateralism and exceptionalism
American exceptionalism has taken many forms throughout its existence, from Manifest Destiny in the post-revolutionary republic, to the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, to the victories of the Second World War. In recent decades it has changed again, from the shining city on a hill of the Reagan presidency to the movement of the present day. This sense of national exceptionalism has embedded itself in foreign policy and military engagement in almost every conflict since the Cold War, with American priorities and methods taking precedence over those of allies and partners in what are supposed to be collaborative endeavours.
That said, the American federal apparatus faces various challenges to this self-image, ranging from no longer being perceived as the world’s policeman, to changing trade dynamics in Europe, to attempts at multipolarity by China and Russia (Minasyants 2015: 2 to 6). Exceptionalists are thereby prompted into an amplified survival mentality in order to counteract these perceived declines. Combined with current protectionist economic priorities, American exceptionalism will not easily dissipate in this conflict or in similar ones.
Denmark: balancing self-interest with global mindfulness
The Kingdom of Denmark, like many of its Scandinavian neighbours, is carefully navigating how to maintain its own preferences and values while addressing circumstances outside its control. Trust, supportiveness, community, and contribution to the common good are pivotal values. At the same time, Danes do not wish to lose their identity, metaphorically or geographically. Danish overseas territories have been reduced over the last few centuries to Greenland and the Faroe Islands, and even these are more autonomous than directly administered.
Danish stewardship of Greenland can be seen as more than a matter of cultural legacy or national dignity. An environmental dimension can also be assessed. In the face of climate change, Greenland remains largely untouched, especially in the interior, with its small population. Introducing large-scale, unregulated mining operations would greatly affect the integrity of the island’s ecology while amplifying the climate crisis through increased meltwater into the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. Environmental stewardship is one of the ways in which Denmark contributes to the response to the climate crisis while maintaining national pride.
It is also about being mindful of the precedent that would be set if such annexations were accommodated. One acquisition could lead to another. Danish steadfastness on this issue could mitigate or postpone such goals.
Greenland: weighing future options
Kalaallit Nunaat, the island caught in the middle of all this, consists of a pristine landscape, a mindful people, and a keen desire to forge its own destiny. Combining Scandinavian cultural elements with an Inuit majority, Greenland has been gaining autonomy from Denmark for some time, an example of self-determination conducted slowly and deliberately.
Greenlanders, themselves environmental stewards (Wilson 2016: 24 to 25), are accustomed to a way of life fairly similar to the Danish experience. Under American annexation there is no guarantee that this way of life would be maintained or respected without qualification. Taking into account certain American norms in areas such as working conditions, land development, and healthcare, such annexation would be still less appealing.
In the face of this situation, the elections of 2025 displayed a duality of idealism and pragmatism. Parties inclined towards independence gained the majority while also seeking strong solidarity with Denmark in the present, perhaps with the aim of maintaining mutually beneficial ties in the long term while remaining steadfast against perceived existential threats in the short term.
Any negotiation or political and economic solution for Greenland will have to involve and benefit this stakeholder group. This could include meaningful public engagement and transparency, measures to minimise socio-environmental impact, and provision for non-extractive employment (Wilson 2016: 71 to 73).
Challenges and considerations for stakeholders
Several challenging considerations must be assessed in order to secure any peaceful conclusion. The proverbial rock and hard place would be a slight understatement, particularly where exceptionalism or unilateralism comes into play.
For the administration and those who share its outlook, the chief challenge is to achieve economic access or annexation without military involvement, which would violate a number of treaties, including with Denmark itself, and would draw widespread condemnation, thereby affecting many economic arrangements elsewhere. Maintaining a nineteenth century mentality while using twentieth century methods in a twenty-first century world is not the proper way to proceed. Taking the values and priorities of Greenlanders and of Denmark seriously would be an ethical consideration that would ease tensions.
For the other stakeholders, the chief challenge is how to navigate the situation without further escalation on the one hand or excessive concession on the other. The concurrent prospective mineral agreement between the United States and Ukraine presents a mixture of advantages and disadvantages, and a similar arrangement here would be beneficial to only one side.
In terms of format and convening, an approach engaging multistakeholder or complex multidimensional negotiation, akin to that conducted for environmental protection and internet regulation in the late twentieth century (Lebedeva and Zinovieva 2023: 151), could produce the appropriate composition. The use of digital and technical elements can shape the parameters of negotiation alongside other considerations such as public relations throughout the process, prior situation analysis, and logistical and resource management (Lebedeva and Zinovieva 2023: 152 to 153).
An issue of crisis communication
In delicate situations such as this, where the degree of crisis has not reached its possible peak, deliberate and mindful communication is essential to achieve de-escalation or resolution. The rhetoric thus far does not permit the sustainment of rapport between the nations. Active listening, though lacking, would be an essential step for both the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark to undertake, ensuring that tone, cadence, and pacing do not give further hostile impressions or convey disrespect.
Where the communications take place would make a difference. In terms of neutral locations, suitable options would include Iceland, Canada, or one of the neighbouring Scandinavian countries, so that relevance and convenience are combined with neutrality of space for undistracted dialogue.
Reframing the talking points, not only of the United States but also of Denmark and Greenland, may be necessary in re-establishing historic rapport, so that discourse is not derailed. Prior boldness of tone or wording would then not distract from the objective needs and subjective issues at stake. Reviewing the baseline summaries would allow reflection by every side while possibly revealing intersecting priorities that could generate solutions.
Considerations for this conflict’s mediators
This dispute leans towards a mixed conflict of factual considerations combined with moments of heated feeling among the most affected communities.
It is likely that the administration will de-escalate its annexation rhetoric if it receives a favourable mining or processing agreement within a certain time frame.
It is imperative that mediators craft preliminary language and subsequent written agreements that maintain clear parameters for the negotiations and for an agreed resolution, reaffirm the historic and contemporary partnership between the parties, and do not leave gaps that could become the source of future conflict.
It may be advisable for mediation to be conducted in separate sessions with the parties, with liaison between each side’s positions, interests, and needs before joint sessions are reconvened.
The inclusion of a Greenlandic delegation able to speak for itself would be ethically necessary.
Mediators will have to be mindful of the longevity of any agreement and of the degree of partnership surrounding it. Past attempts at environmentally adjacent mediation through regional organisations or involving questions of access and ownership (Winkler 2024) have demonstrated considerable potential involving non-state actors, but have fallen short in the long term where self-interest prevailed or where breakdowns in dialogue produced later difficulties.
SUMMARY *
The report’s most consequential structural observation is that this is a two-level dispute presented as a one-level one. Sovereignty over Greenland is a matter between Washington and Copenhagen; the future of Greenland is a matter for Greenlanders, whose recent elections returned parties committed both to eventual independence and to present solidarity with Denmark. A negotiation conducted between the two states about the island reproduces the colonial structure that Greenland has spent decades unwinding, and a negotiation that includes Greenlanders as principals changes what can be agreed. The report’s second observation is that the substantive interest at issue, access to rare earth deposits, does not require any change of sovereignty at all, which means the dispute as framed and the dispute as it might be resolved are not the same dispute.
CONCLUSION
At the time of writing, uncertainty still looms. Whether this proves to be a war of rhetoric that dissipates fairly quickly, or develops into something more serious, future readers will know. As the twenty-first century proceeds, older patterns of conflict over fundamental resources will recur, the more so as advanced computing technology develops and the climate crisis worsens. But we have collectively grown more mindful of the world around us, and of the consequences of our words as well as our actions. The best and most ethical paths forward are those travelled together.
Perhaps the resolution lies in selective mining conducted as a multilateral effort inclusive of the Inuit people. Or in greater effort to develop technologies that do not damage the ecology of Greenland or the climate of the world. Or perhaps in waiting until cooler heads prevail. Whichever pathway decision makers choose, the underlying value of mindfulness remains.
POTENTIAL SOLUTION *
The report’s own analysis contains the settlement, and stating it plainly is worth doing: the interest and the demand are not the same thing. Access to rare earth deposits requires licences, capital, infrastructure and a processing route. It does not require sovereignty. Greenland has an established minerals licensing regime, has issued licences to foreign companies, and needs precisely the investment that would develop them. An arrangement providing long-term offtake agreements, equity participation, port and energy infrastructure, and processing capacity elsewhere in the alliance would deliver everything the stated interest requires, and every element of it is already lawful. That such an arrangement has not been pursued suggests either that the stated interest is not the operative one, or that the demand serves a domestic audience for which acquisition is the point. Distinguishing between those two possibilities is the first task of any mediator here, because they call for entirely different processes.
The security dimension similarly admits of arrangements short of the demand. The agreement of 1951 already grants extensive access, and the installation at Pituffik operates under it. Where a state already possesses what it says it needs, a demand for more is a demand for something else, and naming that something else is the precondition for negotiating about it.
Two structural points bear on the report’s recommendations. Greenland’s status under the Self-Government Act of 2009 includes recognition of Greenlanders as a people under international law with a right of self-determination, and control over mineral resources rests with Nuuk rather than Copenhagen. The consequence is not merely that Greenlandic participation would be ethically preferable, as the report puts it, but that an agreement about minerals concluded without Greenland would be legally ineffective. The report’s recommendation is stronger than it claims. And the free, prior and informed consent standard applicable to indigenous peoples in respect of extractive projects on their territories supplies a procedural framework that already exists and that all parties nominally accept.
Two observations on method. The recommendation of shuttle mediation is sound, and the difficulty here is the composition of the table rather than the format: any process must accommodate a party that is simultaneously a stakeholder in its own right and part of a kingdom, which is a familiar problem with familiar solutions, including sub-state delegations with defined competences and agreements structured in separable parts. And the report’s emphasis on crisis communication identifies the real risk in a dispute conducted largely through public statements, since positions taken in public are costly to abandon. Establishing a quiet channel alongside the public one is the standard remedy, and it works only if it exists before the public positions have hardened past the point of retreat.
Finally, one caution about the report’s own strongest passage. The account of technocracy is the most speculative element and the least necessary to the argument. The material interest in rare earth elements, the strategic interest in the Arctic, and the domestic political value of territorial ambition are together sufficient to explain what is observed, and they are demonstrable. An explanation resting on a named individual’s grandfather’s membership of an interwar movement is not demonstrable, and it invites dismissal of the analysis as a whole. Where a conflict analysis reaches for motive, the discipline of the field is to describe what parties do and to ask what they say they want, since those are the things a mediator can work with. The rest is inference, and a party who feels their motives have been assigned rather than asked about is a party who does not come to the table.
* Added by the WMO Editorial Team
REFERENCES
Amonson, Kyle Mark. The Role of America: An Analysis of Multilateralism in the 21st Century. Journal of International Relations 6, no. 1 (2018): 7 to 11.
Eidemiller, Konstantin, Anton Geht, Anni Nikulina, and Regina-Elizaveta Kudriavtceva. The Political Status of Greenland in the 21st Century: The Path from the Colony of the Kingdom of Denmark to the Possible 51st State of the USA. In Proceedings of Topical Issues in International Political Geography, 119 to 132. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020.
Khederlarian, Kristina. The Consequences of Annexation on Financial Markets. Claremont Graduate University, 2020.
Lebedeva, Marina M., and Elena S. Zinovieva. International Negotiations in the Digital Age. Vestnik RUDN: International Relations 23, no. 1 (2023): 144 to 156.
Minasyants, Armenak. US Hegemony in the 21st Century: A New Approach. Academia.edu, 2 April 2015. https://www.academia.edu/11776151/US_Hegemony_in_21st_Century_A_New_Approach
Oh, Chang Hoon, Jiyoung Shin, and Shuna Shu Ham Ho. Conflicts between Mining Companies and Communities: Institutional Environments and Conflict Resolution Approaches. Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 32, no. 2 (2023): 638 to 656.
Petersen, Nikolaj. Negotiating the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement: Theoretical and Empirical Aspects. Scandinavian Political Studies 21, no. 1 (1998): 1 to 28.
Shala, Sebahate. Global (Dis)Order: A Bipolar Plus World in the Making. WMO Conflict Insight, March 2024. ISSN 2628 6998. https://worldmediation.org/journal/
Smith, Jeffrey J. The Taking of the Sahara: The Role of Natural Resources in the Continuing Occupation of Western Sahara. Western Sahara (2018): 23 to 43.
Song, Seongjong. American Exceptionalism at a Crossroads. The Korean Journal of International Studies 13, no. 1 (2015): 239 to 262.
The Technocrat, vol. 3, no. 4, September 1937. Technocracy Inc. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/TheTechnocrat-September1937
Thrane, Kristine, Per Kalvig, and Nynke Keulen. REE Deposits and Occurrences in Greenland. In ERES2014: 1st European Rare Earth Resources Conference, Milos, Greece, 2014.
Vaillant, Tom. Greenland’s Rare Earths Attract European and U.S. Interest, Signaling Potential Mining Boom. Pulitzer Center, 14 November 2024. https://pulitzercenter.org/stories/greenlands-rare-earths-attract-european-and-us-interest-signaling-potential-mining-boom
Wilson, Emma C. Energy and Minerals in Greenland: Governance, Corporate Responsibility and Social Resilience. Academia.edu, 14 July 2016. https://www.academia.edu/26986195/Energy_and_minerals_in_Greenland_Governance_corporate_responsibility_and_social_resilience
Winkler, Zachariah. Mother Nature Is a Battleground: Patterns in Conflict over Natural Resources. WMO Conflict Insight, December 2024. ISSN 2628 6998. https://worldmediation.org/journal/
Supplementary references added by the WMO Editorial Team
Act on Greenland Self-Government, Act No. 473 of 12 June 2009, and the Mineral Resources Act of Greenland.
Agreement between the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Government of the United States of America concerning the Defense of Greenland, Copenhagen, 27 April 1951, and the Igaliku Agreement of 2004.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007, Articles 19 and 32 on free, prior and informed consent.
International Labour Organization Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, 1989.
Arctic Council, working group reports on sustainable development and on the protection of the Arctic marine environment, Tromsø.
Nuttall, M. (2017). Climate, Society and Subsurface Politics in Greenland: Under the Great Ice. Routledge, London.
Gad, U. P. (2017). National Identity Politics and Postcolonial Sovereignty Games: Greenland, Denmark, and the European Union. Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (3rd edition). Penguin Books, New York, on the distinction between positions and interests.
