listen to this article | 6 minutes
Denmark is in a state of panic as the threat of a US takeover of Greenland grows. More Danish soldiers have been sent to the island, and European allies are also sending small units in a symbolic show of support.
The words sovereignty, self-determination, and international law have suddenly taken on an urgency. Danish politicians talk about principles, borders and the dangers of great power politics.
What’s striking is that Denmark doesn’t look panicked, but surprised.
Greenland is strategic. It’s always been that way. Its location, resources, and military value make it a desirable prize in an increasingly competitive world order. The renewed U.S. interest in the island is not an anomaly or a momentary excess of rhetoric. It is the logical expression of an imperial worldview, a worldview that prioritizes power, access, and control over any form of international norms.
It is not just the threat itself that makes the Greenland case uncomfortable for Denmark. It is the mirror it supports.
For decades, Denmark has remained a reliable partner in promoting this very same imperial worldview in other countries. It cooperated closely with the United States not only diplomatically but also militarily. Denmark entered a war that reshaped the entire region under the banner of security, values, and loyalty to the Alliance. Now, with the same imperial logic being applied to Danish territory, the abstractions of geopolitics suddenly become concrete.
This is the irony that Denmark has to face.
Concerns about Greenland are based on arguments with which Denmark is familiar. That sovereignty is important. Territory is not a commodity. That international law cannot be applied selectively. But these principles were noticeably absent from Denmark’s considerations when it participated in the invasion of Iraq, a war that was launched without a legal mandate and justified by false claims that quickly fell apart.
These arguments were also diluted in Afghanistan, where two decades of war ended not in stability but in exhaustion and a return to the status quo. They almost completely disappeared in Libya, where Danish aircraft played a decisive role in overthrowing leader Muammar Gaddafi. What followed was a broken state defined by militias, chaos, and human trafficking.
In Syria, Denmark’s direct and indirect involvement became part of a broader Western intervention. The popular uprising turned into a protracted proxy war, with devastating consequences for civilians and regional stability.
Each of these interventions was framed as needed. Each was presented as a moral obligation. Each was defended as part of a rules-based international order. In fact, each contributed to eroding the very norms that Denmark currently invokes when Greenland enters the equation.
Palestine makes this contradiction impossible to ignore.
Israel is a close ally of Denmark, but Danish political leadership remains severely constrained as the Gaza Strip is reduced to rubble. While international legal experts, humanitarian organizations and UN agencies have warned of genocide, Denmark’s response has been muted and cautious. The calls for responsibility were silenced. Moral clarity has been deferred.
At the same time, Danish industry remains embroiled in the war machine. Danish defense companies continue to supply spare parts for F-35 fighter jets, the aircraft that played a central role in the bombing of Gaza. Asked whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would be subject to international arrest obligations if he entered Denmark, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen declined to give a clear answer.
The law has conditions. The principle is flexible. Denmark has long contributed to the normalization of a world in which power decides when laws are applied.
For many years, imperial violence was something that happened elsewhere. To other people in other areas. The results have been exported. unstable country. Mass movement. Radicalization. Steady hollowing out of international organizations. Europe absorbed some of the impact but largely refused to link it to its own political choices. Denmark was no exception.
Greenland collapses that distance. Gaza is exposing its underlying moral structure.
What Denmark is currently experiencing is not an injustice. It’s exposure.
The same arguments that were once used to justify intervention in the Middle East are now being reused all around us. Strategic necessity. Security concerns. global competition. These are not new concepts. They are just being applied in directions that Denmark did not expect.
This moment reveals the limits of moral selectivity. International law cannot be followed only when it is convenient. Sovereignty is sacred in the Arctic and must not be disposable elsewhere. Small states cannot rely on principles they have undermined and expect those principles to be maintained as global power relations change.
For Europe as a whole, the implications are profound. Alliance with the Empire does not guarantee protection from the Empire. Loyalty does not create autonomy. A continent that tolerates the erosion of its laws abroad will eventually face a lack of laws at home.
Greenland is not just a territorial issue. It’s a calculation.
The irony is perfect. The question is whether Denmark and Europe will ultimately choose to learn from it.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial stance of Al Jazeera.
