The Arctic Circle: The Issue of Greenland in Context
It is momentous for the Trump administration to push so hard for the acquisition of Greenland, and not just for its historical significance, as a land grab like this has not been in style in the US for quite some time. While it would be easy to pin this solely on Trump and his ego, there are in fact much larger forces at play, namely, the capitalist-imperialist system. Greenland is a major set piece in a much larger struggle for territorial expansion in the Arctic. The consequences of whether the US does manage to take Greenland, by negotiation or by force, could very well define where it places itself in encroaching imperialist conflicts. Short of the moon and beyond, the Arctic (and Antarctica, which we’ll discuss) is yet to be totally conquered, but that may be about to change.
Climate change is reorganizing the physical face of the Earth, and the mandate of “green capitalism” (expanding technological development in new forms of energy capture, material science, etc.) is setting the stage for the energy wars to come. We need only look at the Russia-Ukraine war for a snapshot of how increasing costs and demands in energy are moving us away from the smaller conflicts that defined the late 20th and early 21st centuries and toward conflicts between the dominant imperialist powers. While not immediately obvious, the Arctic Circle is geographically right in the middle of all these powers. Russia is the single largest holder of real estate, claiming nearly one-fifth of the available landmass in the Arctic and 53% of its coastline. The rest belongs to Canada (making up 40% of its landmass), Denmark (via Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the United States (1).
With the increase in average global temperatures, absolutely massive quantities of Arctic ice are melting. Aside from any unforeseen ecological consequences, this will not only dramatically increase the Arctic Ocean’s suitability for trade as it becomes more accessible, but it will also make the extraction of raw materials on Arctic landmasses much easier and cheaper.
Several of the largest imperialist powers have already recognized these changes. China, for example, has written extensively on a “Polar Silk Road” (2). By leveraging investment over the next several decades on the basis of mutual economic benefit, China is preparing for resource extraction and waterways that could open as early as 2070. Having already mastered investment in key logistics infrastructure such as ports and dry docks around the world, being the largest manufacturer of solar panels and batteries that require rare earth metals, and maintaining its position as the world’s top manufacturer for the foreseeable future, China has much to gain. With its position as a still-rising imperialist power, the diplomatic route remains very much an option.
Russia already relies on a significant oil and gas industry in the region. In 2020, however, it greatly expanded its vision, laying out plans in the imaginatively named “Basic Principles of Russian Federation State Policy in the Arctic to 2035.” The document emphasizes improving the standard of living for its Arctic population, maintaining its Arctic territory through diplomacy, and developing the Northern Sea Route (3). All of this underscores Russia’s vast plans for investing in the Arctic to expand its own coffers.
The EU, with multiple member states holding Arctic territory and Greenland by proxy as part of Denmark, already conducts trade and investment in the region through trade deals, communication lines, and more. The Russia-Ukraine war sent EU energy costs soaring, sparking a strategic phase-out and ban on the import of Russian energy, which has made Norway’s natural gas extraction particularly crucial (4).
The US desire for Greenland can be broken down into three goals:
To dramatically increase its territory both in terms of landmass and control over shipping lanes.
To access Greenland’s vast untouched quantities of raw materials as their extraction becomes more cost-effective.
To deny competing imperialists the political-economic advantages that come with controlling Greenland and to gain greater security against them.
The US has already been trying to expand its claim over waters beyond the coast of Alaska through the US Extended Continental Shelf Project, giving the US dominion over waters and raw materials that exist under the seafloor (5). However, pairing this with the acquisition of Greenland would give the US the second-longest Arctic coastline and all the massive strategic advantages that come with it.
While publicly Donald Trump backed away from an outright invasion of Greenland, this does not mean he abandoned the idea. The US holds significant leverage over the EU in the form of liquefied natural gas, as the shift from dependence on Russian energy cannot be satisfied by what Europe can extract in partnership with Norway alone (6). It is important to understand just how serious this is, as these observations and expansions regarding the Arctic did not spring from Trump’s mind but are in fact the product of strategic research and policy that existed before and after his first presidency. The aggressive bid for Greenland represents a noticeable shift in the redistribution of the Arctic Circle (7), as even other NATO countries find themselves directly at odds, showing just how fragile these old alliances truly are.
Despite remaining challenges such as an available workforce in Greenland—something that could be resolved by the US’s significantly larger population—the available capital among US firms could enable the exploitation of Greenland’s natural resources in ways Denmark simply could not match. Greenland is also much more stable than a country such as Venezuela, whose political and economic destruction at the hands of the US makes investment difficult. This means there would likely be less hesitation from firms to invest and more enthusiasm for pursuing Greenland’s acquisition.
We can see how similar conditions are being replicated in Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty System severely limits territorial claims and resource extraction. This has not stopped every major imperialist bloc from building more, larger, and permanent colonies on the continent. As the world gets warmer, Antarctica will continue to become more alluring, especially after 2048 when the Antarctic Treaty opens the floor to changes with a three-quarters majority support, and with every single one of those potential supporters ready to chomp at the bit (8).
The poles of this planet are quickly shaping up to be ground zero of a new era of massive inter-imperialist conflicts, as the last untouched non-submerged landmasses on Earth begin emerging from the ice. The strategic futures of the US and the EU are being decided by how much of the Arctic Circle these imperialist blocs control. Regardless of the outcome, we are marching toward a future in which masses of workers will be sent to their deaths to fight in new energy wars in the Arctic and Antarctic theaters.
This only further emphasizes the need for international solidarity among the working class and the necessity of revolution. Our planet depends on it. Our lives depend on it.