Today, many people around the world know where Greenland is located and the fact that it is the largest island in the world, although this is not entirely true, since Australia, with 7 668 287 squared kilometers is almost four times the size of Greenland. Yet many consider Australia a continent -which then leaves the title to Greenland.
Another well-known fact about the location of Greenland -besides being part of North America and thus, the Western Hemisphere - is that it is part of the Arctic, a frozen ocean, unlike Antarctica, a frozen continent. The regimes that rule human activities in both poles are completely different. Whereas Antarctica is ruled by the Antarctic Treaty of 1959, which manages territorial demands -and there are many- by a number of countries, the Arctic lacks a similar arrangement, making it a very vulnerable area specially for military and commercial activities. Why is that?
To start, back in 1958, during the International Geophysical Year, scientists from all over the world conducted a global effort to study the Earth, its poles, its atmosphere, and its interactions with the Sun. The effort took seven years of planning and coordination involving 11 science disciplines, bringing together 67 nations -Mexico among them- and the International geophysical year lasted 18 months, from July 1957 to December 1958. It was the time when Sputnik the first artificial satellite of Earth, was put into orbit by the Soviet Union, followed by the U.S.’ Explorer 1. Both contributed with large quantities of information, so much that several World Data Centers were established in different parts of the world to process it and have it at the disposal of countries, academics and science.
But the International Geophysical Year was also established due to the fear of growing militarization in the world. By the time the USSR had launched Sputnik I and Sputnik II -this with the stray dog Laika on board- it was clear that the R7 rocket systems employed for this monumental achievement could be in fact delivery vehicles for the transportation of nuclear weapons. The poles are very important because the trajectory of intercontinental ballistic missiles would leave Earth mostly on the high layers of the atmosphere and would re-entry to accelerate their speed to their final targets -and detonations.
The militarization of outer space was a major concern and thus, 10 years after the launch of the first Sputnik, the Outer Space Treaty was concluded. In the meantime, the relevance of the poles and the dangers they faced due to the arms race led to fear military activities and installations could be deployed in the area plus commercial activities like mining and tourism.
This was the reason behind the signing of the Antarctic Treaty on Dec. 1, 1959, which came into force on June 23, 1961. The Antarctic Treaty was subscribed by the 12 countries active in the Antarctic during the International Geophysical Year: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. Although Mexican scientists conducted research activities in Antarctica, the country did not join the treaty. As of 2024, the treaty has been signed by 58 countries -Mexico is not among them. Ony the 12 nations mentioned above have territorial claims over the continent, and some claims overlap, as exemplified by the Antarctic Peninsula, named Graham land by the British, O’Higgins land by Chile and San Martin land by Argentina.
The treaty prevents commercial and military activities in the continent, although in 2048 there will be a review process in which changes to the treaty may be introduced if three-quarters of consultative parties agree to do so. It is feared some countries like the United States and the People’s Republic of China, may want to develop mining, fishing and other activities in the frozen continent, which is already suffering the consequences of global warming.
The Antarctic Treaty is considered a pain in the neck for major powers. At a time when strategic resources are needed, the Antarctic Treaty does not allow for their exploitation, at least for now. This explains, in part, why the Arctic lacks a similar arrangement.
The Arctic is a frozen ocean. The countries that have access to it are Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia, the United States, Canada, Greenland and Iceland. Contrary to Antarctica, the Arctic has human settlements, of which 10 percent are Arctic indigenous peoples -although Iceland lacks indigenous population. Arctic population is estimated in four million, of which most of it resides in North America -Canada and the United States-, Greenland and Russia. The other human settlements are hunters and city dwellers.
The legislations of the eight countries located at the Polar Circle, establish special provisions for indigenous peoples and central governments make decisions on their social, political and economic needs, that are not necessarily inclusive. In Canada, for example, the areas of the country within the Polar Circle are territories, not provinces, meaning they have less autonomy than Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and such. Although legislations are intended to protect indigenous populations and their cultures, traditions and economic activities, the rapid changes the region is experiencing due to commercial activities -take oil exploitation in Alaska, as an example-, nuclear pollution -both the United States and the Soviet Union used to dump nuclear waste in the Arctic-, environmental degradation -due to global warming-, military activities and, in case the polar cap disappears, commercial navigation and maritime routes may disturb human settlements and flora and fauna within the region. The standards of living of Arctic indigenous populations are less favorable when compared with the average of their respective countries, normally living between 10-12 years bellow. Poor housing, chronic diseases, poverty and lower education levels are cited as the main causes of these disparities. Fertility rates are higher withing indigenous populations in the circumpolar region compared to the average in their respective countries. Although better data is needed, in the countries where demographics data exists it has been found the indigenous populations are much younger, with a prominent share of the population being under 5 years old.
The Arctic people have been critical in the birth of the Arctic Council under the premises of the serious environmental impacts suffered by the region. Although the Arctic Council, created in 1996 is the result of the Ottawa Declaration with the eight countries that have access to the polar circle, six indigenous Arctic communities actively participate at the institution. Yet, the Ottawa Declaration does not recognize specific rights to indigenous communities, thus their concerns are not always reflected in the work of the council.
Curiously, Denmark chairs the Council for the 2025-2027 period and Copenhagen has said that Greenland is a top priority with issues like sustainable development, climate change, biodiversity, and Indigenous knowledge as contributions to peace and prosperity in the Arctic region. When it comes to security, although Donald Trump has threatened Greenland, and Arctic territory, with annexation by purchasing it or even by force, the Arctic Council has not been able to coordinate a response -the silence of Russia that has said it will monitor the situation, to many is very permissive.
Russia is the largest Arctic nation by far, owning 53% of the Arctic Ocean coastline, and it has long-standing geopolitical, strategic and socioeconomic interests in the region. It has a sea-based nuclear deterrent in the Arctic -during the Cold War it conducted some nuclear tests in the area- and has a number of military bases and airfields there, as well as a specialized fleet of icebreakers to facilitate trade, transportation and resource exploitation. The recent membership of Sweden and Finland at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is of great concerned to Russia, because of the vicinity of these nations to Russian military capabilities on its north.
Also, the Arctic implies jobs, investment and growth for the Russian economy with oil, gas, and mineral extraction industries based there, as well as fisheries and infrastructure and transportation logistics, particularly related to the Northern Sea Route. The interest of the People’s Republic of China in the area has flourished in recent years and its closer relations with Russia opens the door for several investment and infrastructure projects. To Beijing, once the Arctic ice melts, commercial navigation would benefit enormously the Chinese fleet which currently faces pressures and restrictions from Trump to cross the Panama Canal.
To Russia, the interest of Trump on Greenland is great news since it has put Europe on the defensive and has created a “benign distraction” that benefits Moscow -and its pretentions over Ukraine. Now NATO is under siege by its most important member and patron, and Trump’s sanctions are on their way against eight countries – including Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland- as a retaliation for criticizing the possible U.S. annexation of the island.
With Russia out of the picture, the Arctic Council can do little to protect Greenland. And for the reasons explained, it would be extremely difficult to create an international regime and/or organization or treaty such as the one that rules the Antarctic, for the Arctic. These days major powers try to escape institutions and global governance and thus, they are not in the mood for multilateralism. And besides, the Golden Dome, a revived version of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) of the 80’s, sees Greenland as a key component of the planned missile defense shield.
Experts say, that the Golden Dome can be built without seizing the island. But, again, history shows that once a military alliance is employed against its members. Take the Rio Treaty, which created the Interamerican Reciprocal Assistance Treaty (IRAT), born in 1947 - prior to NATO with similar goals. It included Latin American and Caribbean countries. But the history of US interventions in the region has led several countries to withdraw the military alliance, including Mexico which in 2001 announced IRAT made no sense to guarantee the security of the Western Hemisphere. What surprises scholars today is that the US is treating its NATO allies the way it used to treat Latin America and the Caribbean.
Today, interventionism in the Western Hemisphere is more prominent under Trump, and there is no enthusiasm over his security agenda within the region. Just some days ago, Venezuela was making huge headlines. Today is Greenland, because it represents the abrupt end of transatlantic relations the way they used to be, and the birth of something surreal.
Editor’s Note: The above guest column was penned by María Cristina Rosas, a professor and researcher in the faculty of political and social sciences at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City. The column appears in The Rio Grande Guardian International News Service with the permission of the author. Rosas can be reached via email at: mcrosas@prodigy.net.mx
