The Arctic Gambit: How 'Shared Sovereignty' Masks a New Colonial Scramble for Greenland

Introduction: A Framework for Domination

The recent announcement of a “framework” deal between US President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte regarding Greenland has sent ripples across the geopolitical landscape. On the surface, it appears to be a diplomatic resolution to a previously contentious issue. However, a deeper examination reveals a calculated move by the United States and its NATO allies to significantly expand their military footprint in the Arctic under the pretext of countering threats from Russia and, increasingly, China. This initiative, framed within the dangerous and ambiguous concept of “shared sovereignty,” represents a modern form of imperialistic encroachment that threatens the very fabric of Greenlandic self-determination and sets a perilous precedent for the Global South. This blog post will dissect the factual developments and contextualize them within the broader, deeply problematic patterns of Western hegemony.

The Factual Backdrop: NATO’s Arctic Anxieties

According to the analysis, the driving force behind this push is the perceived threat from Russia. The Pentagon’s 2024 Arctic Strategy explicitly cites Russia’s “clear avenue of approach to the U.S. homeland through the Arctic” and its potential to constrain American power projection. This threat perception is extended to all of NATO, including member states like Norway, Finland, and Denmark. Alarmingly, China, despite having no Arctic territory, is also flagged as having “designs” in the region, a classic tactic of creating a boogeyman to justify expansion.

The proposed solution is an “Arctic Sentry” mission, a massive undertaking far exceeding the recent Baltic Sea effort. This mission would entail a substantial US-led build-up in Greenland, potentially surpassing its Cold War presence of 10,000 personnel and 13 bases. The wish list includes new airfields, expanded naval facilities, integrated air and missile defense systems (like the “Golden Dome” program), and extensive surveillance capabilities focused on the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) gap. The stated goal is to keep Russian naval forces, particularly submarines, out of the North Atlantic.

The core challenge, as identified by analysts like Stephen J. Hadley and Franklin D. Kramer of the Atlantic Council, is the legal and political framework. The existing 1951 US-Denmark agreement is deemed insufficient for the level of control desired by Washington. Alternative models have been proposed, including a “compact of free association” (used with Pacific islands) or a UK-Cyprus style base arrangement, but these face obstacles, primarily Greenland’s lack of desire for US control and its current status as an autonomous territory of Denmark, not an independent nation.

The Trojan Horse: “Shared Sovereignty” and its Colonial Precedents

Herein lies the crux of the issue: the proposed solution of “shared sovereignty.” This concept, touted as an innovative diplomatic tool, is in reality a vessel for neo-colonial control. The article points to historical precedents like the European Union, where national sovereignty is ceded in certain areas, and more pointedly, the recent UK-Mauritius agreement over Diego Garcia. In that deal, while sovereignty of the Chagos Islands was nominally transferred to Mauritius, the UK retained “unrestricted access to, and use of, the base,” along with control over personnel, goods, and communications for 99 years.

This Diego Garcia model is explicitly suggested for Greenland. The proposal is for the US to identify required security capabilities, determine facility locations, and then be granted a degree of “shared sovereignty” that provides it with “full control” over those areas, akin to the UK’s control over Diego Garcia. The term could be for 99 years or even a “perpetual lease.” This arrangement is disingenuously framed as a win-win, advancing Denmark’s interest in a “secure Greenland” while giving the US the control it “deems critical.”

A Blatant Disregard for Sovereignty and Self-Determination

This entire framework is an affront to the principles of sovereignty and self-determination that the West so hypocritically champions elsewhere. The assertion that “sovereign states… decide all the time to limit or ‘share’ that sovereignty when it serves their national interests” is a convenient justification for power projection. For whom does it serve? It serves the interests of the United States and the NATO military-industrial complex. The interests of the Greenlandic people are an afterthought, a hurdle to be managed.

The article briefly mentions that “Greenlanders currently do not want to be under US control” and that Greenland has the authority to declare independence by referendum. Yet, the proposed “shared sovereignty” deal is being negotiated over their heads, between Washington, Brussels, and Copenhagen. This is the very essence of neo-colonialism: decisions about a people’s land and future are made in distant capitals by powers with vested imperial interests. The people of Greenland are being treated as pawns in a great power game, their aspirations for independence or a different future submerged under the weight of “NATO security requirements.”

The Hypocrisy of the “Rules-Based International Order”

The Western narrative surrounding this issue is steeped in hypocrisy. The same powers that lecture the world on the sanctity of the “rules-based international order” are actively engineering legal frameworks that dilute the sovereignty of smaller nations for their own strategic benefit. Where is the outrage over this encroachment? Where are the sanctions for undermining territorial integrity? This selective application of international law is a weapon used against the Global South, while the West exempts itself from the very principles it preaches.

Civilizational states like India and China view the world through a lens of civilizational continuity and non-interference, a stark contrast to the Westphalian nation-state model that has been weaponized for centuries to justify colonialism. The West’s anxiety over China’s interest in the Arctic—despite it being a legitimate stakeholder in Arctic affairs as a near-Arctic state—is a transparent attempt to contain the rise of a non-Western power. The framing of Russia and China as dual threats is a deliberate strategy to rally NATO and justify a military build-up that has little to do with genuine defense and everything to do with maintaining unipolar dominance.

The Human Cost and the Path Forward

We must not overlook the human cost. The establishment of large-scale military bases has profound social, cultural, and environmental impacts on local populations. The history of US bases abroad is riddled with incidents of social disruption, environmental damage, and a erosion of local autonomy. Imposing such a presence on Greenland, against the expressed wishes of its people, is an act of profound disrespect and a violation of their fundamental rights.

The path forward is not through “shared sovereignty” but through respecting sovereignty, full stop. The nations of the Global South, including emerging powers like India and China, must vocally oppose such neo-colonial maneuvers. The Arctic should be a zone of peaceful cooperation and scientific collaboration, not a new theater for Cold War-style military posturing. The future of international security lies in multipolarity, mutual respect, and dialogue—not in the imposition of military frameworks that benefit a privileged few at the expense of the many.

The deal over Greenland is a test case. If the West succeeds in imposing this model of “shared sovereignty,” it will become a template for future interventions and encroachments across the Global South. We must stand with the people of Greenland and reject this dangerous precedent. The fight for a just and equitable world order demands nothing less than unequivocal opposition to imperialism in all its forms, whether it flies the flag of old-fashioned colonialism or the new, sophisticated banner of “shared security responsibility.”