Executive Summary

The Trump administration’s renewed pursuit of acquiring Greenland, including explicit mention of military options, represents a significant departure from post-World War II norms of territorial integrity and sovereignty. This case study examines the geopolitical implications of this stance and its particular relevance to Singapore as a small state heavily invested in the rules-based international order.

Case Study: The Greenland Question

Background and Context

Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark with a population of approximately 57,000, has become the focus of renewed American territorial ambitions. President Donald Trump’s administration has framed the acquisition as a national security imperative, citing the need to counter Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic region and secure access to critical mineral deposits essential for high-technology and military applications.

The Arctic has emerged as a critical geopolitical theater due to several converging factors. Climate change has made previously inaccessible shipping routes and resource deposits viable, while great power competition has intensified in the region. Greenland’s strategic location astride potential Northern Sea Routes and its proximity to North American air defense systems make it militarily significant. Additionally, the island possesses substantial deposits of rare earth elements, currently dominated by Chinese production, which are crucial for modern electronics, defense systems, and green energy technologies.

Key Actors and Positions

The White House has taken an unusually aggressive stance, with official statements confirming that “utilizing the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal.” Senior administration officials have indicated that discussions are active in the Oval Office, with options ranging from outright purchase to establishing a Compact of Free Association similar to arrangements with Pacific island nations like Palau and the Marshall Islands.

Greenland’s government has consistently and firmly rejected any notion of becoming part of the United States, asserting the territory’s right to self-determination. The population has shown no interest in changing their political status, viewing themselves as distinctly Greenlandic with strong cultural and political ties to the Nordic region.

Denmark has found itself in an awkward position, nominally responsible for Greenland’s foreign affairs and defense while respecting the territory’s autonomy on most matters. The Danish government has sought to balance its NATO alliance with the United States against its obligation to defend Greenland’s interests and sovereignty.

European leaders, including those from France, Germany, and the United Kingdom, have rallied behind Greenland, issuing statements affirming that the Arctic island belongs to its people. NATO allies have expressed concern about the precedent such acquisition efforts might set, even as they acknowledge their security interdependence with the United States.

The Venezuela Operation Context

The timing of renewed Greenland discussions is noteworthy, coming immediately after the controversial US military operation that resulted in the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. This operation, conducted without apparent coordination with international bodies or regional partners, has already generated significant unease throughout the Asia-Pacific region about the trajectory of American foreign policy and respect for sovereignty norms.

The juxtaposition of these two events suggests a broader pattern in which the current US administration may be willing to employ unilateral military or coercive measures to achieve foreign policy objectives, even when such actions conflict with established international law and alliance relationships.

Outlook: Potential Scenarios and Trajectories

Scenario One: Diplomatic Stalemate

The most likely near-term outcome remains a diplomatic impasse in which the Trump administration continues to express interest in Greenland while facing united opposition from Greenland, Denmark, and European allies. In this scenario, the issue would generate periodic tensions but not escalate to concrete action beyond rhetorical pressure and perhaps economic inducements.

However, the explicit inclusion of military options in official White House statements represents a departure from previous episodes of American interest in Greenland. This suggests the administration may view the current moment as uniquely favorable for pressing territorial claims, potentially calculating that European allies are too dependent on American security guarantees to mount effective opposition.

Scenario Two: Economic Coercion

A more assertive approach might involve economic pressure on Denmark and Greenland, potentially including threats to reduce defense cooperation, alter trade relationships, or condition security commitments on movement toward American acquisition goals. The administration might also attempt to bypass Danish and Greenlandic governments by offering substantial financial packages directly to Greenland’s population through referendum mechanisms.

Such an approach would still face significant obstacles, including strong Greenlandic identity and European solidarity, but could be more palatable to the administration than direct military action while still achieving incremental progress toward acquisition goals.

Scenario Three: Limited Military Action

In a more extreme scenario, the United States could establish military installations or presence in Greenland over Danish objections, effectively creating facts on the ground that normalize American control regardless of formal sovereignty arrangements. This might be justified through claimed security emergencies or expanded interpretations of existing defense agreements.

This would represent a severe crisis in transatlantic relations and NATO unity, potentially fracturing the alliance and fundamentally altering the post-World War II security architecture. However, given the explicit mention of military options and the precedent of the Venezuela operation, this possibility cannot be entirely dismissed.

Longer-Term Trajectory

Regardless of specific tactics, the administration appears committed to pursuing Greenland acquisition throughout the remainder of Trump’s term. The key variables will be the strength of European resistance, the willingness of Greenland’s population to consider alternatives, and the administration’s assessment of domestic political costs versus benefits.

The Venezuela operation has already demonstrated the administration’s willingness to challenge rules-based order norms when it perceives strategic advantage. Whether this extends to actions against allied territories in the Arctic remains uncertain, but the mere articulation of such possibilities represents a significant shift in American foreign policy discourse.

Impact on Singapore

Direct Strategic Implications

Singapore faces several direct consequences from the erosion of territorial sovereignty norms implicit in the Greenland situation. As a small state whose security and prosperity depend fundamentally on respect for international law and the rules-based order, any precedent suggesting that powerful nations can coerce or acquire territory from weaker parties through military threats or economic pressure represents an existential concern.

Singapore’s own territorial integrity and sovereignty could be called into question if the international community fails to maintain strong norms against territorial revisionism. While the immediate risk to Singapore is limited, the longer-term erosion of principles that have protected small states since World War II would fundamentally alter the strategic environment in Southeast Asia.

The city-state has invested heavily in building a robust international legal framework that protects small states’ rights and ensures that might does not make right in international affairs. Any normalization of territorial acquisition through coercion, even if initially confined to great power interactions with peripheral territories, could eventually extend to regions where Singapore’s interests are more directly at stake.

ASEAN and Regional Order Concerns

The Greenland episode compounds existing concerns in Southeast Asia about great power behavior and respect for sovereignty. The South China Sea disputes have already tested ASEAN cohesion and the effectiveness of international law in constraining territorial assertions. If the United States, long presented as the guarantor of rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific, demonstrates similar willingness to override sovereignty norms in pursuit of strategic interests, it undermines the moral and legal basis for resistance to Chinese territorial claims.

Singapore has carefully balanced its economic dependence on China with security cooperation with the United States, predicated on the assumption that American presence in the region supports rather than threatens the sovereignty of small states. If American policy increasingly resembles great power spheres of influence rather than rules-based engagement, this balance becomes more difficult to maintain.

ASEAN unity has already been tested by the Venezuela operation, with member states expressing concern about unilateral military actions and the precedents they set. Continued American disregard for sovereignty norms in pursuit of strategic objectives would further complicate ASEAN’s efforts to maintain centrality in regional security architecture and resist pressure to choose sides in great power competition.

Economic and Trade Considerations

Singapore’s position as a global trading hub and financial center depends on stable, predictable international relations governed by clear rules and norms. The uncertainty generated by unpredictable American foreign policy, including willingness to use military force or economic coercion to achieve territorial objectives, introduces risk into international commerce and investment.

If the Greenland situation escalates to a serious transatlantic crisis, it could disrupt global trade patterns, affect currency markets, and generate broader economic uncertainty that would impact Singapore’s economy. As a highly open economy with significant exposure to both American and European markets, Singapore would be vulnerable to any serious deterioration in US-European relations.

More broadly, the erosion of multilateral institutions and rules-based order increases transaction costs and unpredictability in international commerce, potentially affecting Singapore’s comparative advantage as a stable, reliable hub for business and finance in an increasingly volatile world.

Defense and Security Partnerships

Singapore maintains significant defense cooperation with the United States, including training facilities, logistics arrangements, and intelligence sharing. These relationships have been predicated on shared commitment to regional stability and rules-based order. If American foreign policy increasingly emphasizes unilateral action and territorial acquisition, Singapore may need to reconsider the terms and extent of these partnerships.

At the same time, Singapore cannot afford to distance itself too far from the United States given the importance of American power in balancing Chinese influence in Southeast Asia. This creates a difficult dilemma in which Singapore must simultaneously signal concern about American actions that undermine international norms while maintaining security cooperation necessary for its own defense and regional balance of power.

The Greenland situation also raises questions about the reliability of American security commitments to small allies and partners. If the United States is willing to contemplate military action against the territory of a NATO ally, what confidence can non-allied partners have in American respect for their sovereignty and interests?

Diplomatic Positioning

Singapore will likely need to carefully calibrate its diplomatic response to the Greenland situation, balancing several competing interests. The city-state will want to affirm its commitment to territorial sovereignty and the rules-based order without directly confronting the United States or appearing to side with European powers against an important security partner.

Singapore may work through ASEAN and other multilateral forums to express concern about erosion of sovereignty norms without singling out specific countries or situations. The emphasis would be on principles rather than parties, maintaining diplomatic flexibility while still defending core interests in international law and order.

The challenge for Singapore’s diplomacy is that remaining silent in the face of major power violations of sovereignty norms suggests acquiescence and weakens the normative framework that protects small states, while speaking out risks antagonizing a crucial security partner. This dilemma will only intensify if the Greenland situation escalates or if similar episodes occur in the future.

Long-Term Strategic Planning

The Greenland episode should prompt reassessment of Singapore’s long-term strategic planning and assumptions. If the rules-based international order is genuinely eroding rather than experiencing temporary turbulence, Singapore will need to adapt its strategies for ensuring security, prosperity, and sovereignty in a more anarchic international environment.

This might involve greater emphasis on building multiple strategic partnerships to avoid over-dependence on any single power, increased investment in indigenous defense capabilities, and more active diplomacy to build coalitions of like-minded states committed to defending sovereignty norms. Singapore may also need to consider whether existing multilateral institutions remain adequate for protecting small state interests or whether new frameworks are needed.

The key question for Singapore’s strategic planners is whether recent American actions represent a temporary aberration or a more fundamental shift in how great powers approach international relations. If the latter, Singapore and other small states will need to fundamentally rethink their security strategies and international engagement.

Conclusion

The Trump administration’s pursuit of Greenland, particularly the explicit inclusion of military options, represents a significant challenge to post-World War II norms of territorial integrity and sovereignty. For Singapore, this development is deeply concerning as it threatens the rules-based international order upon which small states depend for security and prosperity.

The immediate impact on Singapore is limited, but the longer-term implications could be profound if the Greenland situation presages a broader erosion of sovereignty norms and multilateral institutions. Singapore will need to carefully navigate its diplomatic response, maintaining security partnerships with the United States while defending principles essential to small state survival.

The coming months will be critical in determining whether the international community can effectively resist territorial revisionism by major powers or whether the rules-based order is entering a period of fundamental transformation. For Singapore and other small states, the stakes could not be higher, as their continued independence and prosperity depend on maintaining effective international constraints on great power behavior.