Greenland & The Democratic Peace Theory

by Brett Manero

The news has been rife with talk of a possible American takeover of Greenland. President Donald Trump has stated that he desires to acquire Greenland as an American territory, and that this will be accomplished in one way or another. His spokesperson has implied that military action is not ruled out. Greenland will become an American territory, according to this administration.

Firstly, one must understand the geo-political context, which involves the strategic Arctic as a “new Cold War” battlefield, the fragility of NATO, and even climate change. The Arctic ice is melting due to climate change and warming temperatures, which is naturally making travel by sea easier for ships, which of course includes the navies of such major players as the United States, Russia, and China. Apparently, it is no secret that Russia and China – adversaries of America – that desire control over Greenland as a strategic base. Not only does it provide ample landmass for military bases, but it also apparently houses massive reserves of precious minerals.

Donald Trump sees an American acquisition of Greenland as a strategic necessity. Perhaps he is not entirely wrong. Obtaining Greenland first before Russia and China do would be massively beneficial to democratic North America and Europe.

The problem, however, is how the Trump administration is going about this. In refusing to rule out military action, it is being implied that the American military could actually land on Greenland to take it by force. Greenland is a semi-autonomous region that is owned by Denmark, a tiny nation of Northern Europe and Scandinavia. Denmark is a member of the NATO alliance, which has served as the foundation of Northern Atlantic security since the years after the Second World War. Indeed, NATO is one of the most consequential alliances in human history, second only to the vital Anglo-American alliance that defeated the Axis Powers of World War II. NATO was founded as the successor to the Anglo-American alliance, seeking to further defend Europe and the North Atlantic from Soviet aggression and expansion. With the fall of the Soviet Union over thirty years ago, NATO has remained, even if some have argued for its dissolution. Europe has enjoyed the longest period of peace in centuries – until the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

NATO is not without its flaws. It is true that not all NATO members have provided their fare share. But its existence is undoubtedly one of the most consequential in history, and its end would prove disastrous for the West.

Enter the current situation. It is unthinkable that Donald Trump could actually order a military takeover of Greenland. This would effectively be an aggressive act against an allied nation – Denmark. Part of the genius of NATO lies in its famous Article 5, which calls for collective defense of all members. If one member is attacked, then it is considered an attack on all members, something only invoked once following the terrorist attacks against the United States in September of 2001. If France is attacked, then Italy comes to its defense, as well as all other members. If Canada is attacked, then Spain comes to its aid.

Hence, why the current situation is so awkward. An act of aggression by one NATO member against another brings up the previously-unthinkable question: if one NATO member acted aggressively towards another, would the other members come to the defender’s aid and counter the aggressor? In theory, this would be feasible.

Such a situation would obviously be unprecedented and disastrous for not only NATO, but for the West. Decades of peace and cooperation between Western states could be destroyed. The undermining of NATO would only give pride and confidence to adversaries like Russia and China, who would no doubt rejoice in the fall of the Western alliance.

If an American takeover of Greenland does indeed take place, causing a clear and present danger to the NATO alliance, then a recent political theory will prove to be dead: the democratic peace theory. I remember studying this theory in 2004 as an undergraduate student at the University of St Andrews, studying International Relations. It is amazing to look back at twenty-two years ago and see how the geo-political landscape in the world has changed. 2004 was merely thirteen years following the fall of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War, and the supposed victory of the democratic West over the communist East. Democracy was the name of the game and the dominant governing force. Proponents of the democratic peace theory argue that democracies generally do not engage in war against each other. There are numerous reasons for this. One is that in the absence of a dictator or monarch with absolute power, the presence of many people in a government will naturally lead the nation away from war, as humans generally do not desire going to war. The other argument is that because democratically-elected officials are, in theory, subject to their constituents, they naturally seek to avoid war in order to please those voters. Whatever the theory is rooted in, it has some valid arguments. Perhaps the survival of NATO for nearly eighty years is proof of its validity: it is inherently an alliance of democratic nations that was originally opposed to Soviet expansion, and in recent years has become the opponent of a resurgent and newly-dictatorial Russia.

But the peace theory must stand the test of time. In the 1990’s and 2000’s, when it enjoyed its greatest support, it was merely years after the end of the Cold War. Times have changed. NATO is facing tremendous internal fractures, with the Greenland issue being an example of this. Like all theories and experiments, it must survive the test of time to prove its validity.

If an American takeover of Greenland does indeed occur, it would not only be a tremendous undermining of NATO, but also of the democratic peace theory.

Let’s pray it doesn’t come to that.