In the new geopolitics of the day distance no longer is a guarantee of irrelevance. Territories previously written off as beyond the bounds of human habitation, or as being at the periphery of global civilization, are once again being called into play as strategic pivots in the rapidly changing world order. Greenland is one such case. Its brash return to the center of global attention is not about ice, climate or cartography alone – it is about power projection, prestige and rewriting of strategic narratives.
Greenland has never been geo-political terra nullius. From the 13th century until 1814 it was under the Danish-Norwegian crown. The Treaty of Kiel changed the nature of Scandinavia, giving Norway to Sweden and Denmark its overseas possessions, which included Greenland. A short-lived challenge by Norway in 1931 to northwestern Greenland was finally, and decisively, ended in 1933, when the Permanent Court of International Justice ruled in favor of Denmark. That judgment still determines the legal status of the island.
Why is this history important in the modern world? Because geopolitics is very little about novelty – it is about reactivation.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s publically stated interest in Greenland cannot be separated from his overall worldview, which includes his desire for the Nobel Peace Prize that he has expressed for some time now. Norwegian authorities had always been clear that the Nobel Committee was independent and not subject to government influence. Trump has dismissed this claim saying that Norway’s political establishment inevitably influences the decisions of the committee. This tension – symbolic though that may be – has real strategic consequences.
It is under this light that Greenland is reclaimed as a U.S. “national security concern.” Trump has stressed repeatedly about Russian and Chinese ambitions in the Arctic in which American involvement is seen as a defensive necessity. Yet such rhetoric requires clarity of fact. Greenland has been part of the world that is never American. The fact that the United States once owned it and gave it back is historically false. What did happen was a 1941 defense agreement between Denmark and the U.S. during World War 2 permitting an American military presence – most notably today’s Pituffik (formerly Thule) Air Base. Presence, however, is not sovereignty.
The Greenland story is not a preview of war. NATO membership alone makes direct confrontation between the U.S. and Europe implausible. What is playing out instead is a more insidious exercise in power, that of redefining strategic boundaries. The Arctic is not a frozen afterthought anymore, but is instead the next geopolitical frontier.
Greenland is now at the crossroads of nascent Arctic sea lanes, scarce earth metals and high-tech missile-warning systems, as well as future global trade routes. Since 2009, the island has been enjoying internal self-rule, although its foreign policy and defense are still controlled from Denmark. This structural ambiguity has provided an opening – and one that global powers are very willing to exploit.
These moves are neither impulsive nor rhetorical. They are a deliberate attempt to redraw the lines historically and ideologically, to indicate that the United States aims to maintain its Arctic dominance, through diplomacy where possible and pressure where necessary.
For Pakistan, such shifts have indirect but meaningful implications.
Islamabad has become increasingly aware of changing global climate. By recalibrating its strategic outlook, Pakistan has started to see new ways of staying relevant in an increasingly multipolar world. This moment however requires not rhetoric but restraint, and not passion but precision.
First, Pakistan needs to acknowledge that shifting U.S. priorities – especially those of Trump – have created some breathing room in the form of limited, but tangible diplomatic space. Immediate gains are to be sought pragmatically and relations with China are not to be allowed to fray. Strategic balancing is not an option, it is an imperative. Full absorption in any one power bloc runs the risk of undermining the long-term autonomy.
Second, while not a direct player in Arctic politics, Pakistan can use multilateral institutions like the United Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to push for legal norms, peaceful competition and rules-based engagement. Such positioning makes the soft power strengthened without entanglement.
Third, regional connectivity initiatives – especially CPEC – will have to be conceived not simply as infrastructure, but geo-economic insurance. Incorporating European, Central Asian and Middle Eastern interests into these frameworks makes them more resilient. History would tell us that the U.S. partnerships are transactional and Pakistan should seize the windows of alignment to explore the corridors and alliances that might not open forever.
Fourth, on the defense and intelligence level, Pakistan needs to give a close watch over Arctic military and technological developments. Technologies being tried out in polar theaters today, may well be in South Asia tomorrow. Strategic foresight requires the attention to such patterns.
Finally, Pakistan must avoid the temptation of being a camp follower. Its comparative advantage is to sell itself as a regional stabilizer – one that emphasizes balance over bloc politics, and positions itself as a consistent advocate of peace.
The world chessboard is changing very fast. Greenland is no longer a far away square, it is the symbol of where the power is shifting.
For Pakistan the real challenge is not of choosing sides, but of choosing position – and deriving strategic advantage from a world in flux.
About the Author:
Masood Chaudhry is an investigative journalist and media professional with more than two decades of hands-on experience of the national and international media platforms. Known for his credibility-driven journalism and deep command over national and global affairs, he has extensively reported and analysed politics, national security, constitutional and judicial matters and human rights. As a journalist and analyst he is widely known for asking hard questions and being able to maintain balanced discourse and professional composure under pressure. His incisive analyses of changing global dynamics have made him well-known for his precision, depth and strategic clarity.
About The Author
