The emerging agreement between the United States and Denmark over Greenland may have eased a dangerous transatlantic confrontation, but it has also exposed a deeper challenge facing the international order: how to reconcile the security ambitions of powerful states with the sovereignty and self-determination of smaller territories. President Donald Trump’s campaign to acquire Greenland, including threats of military action, placed an extraordinary strain on relations within NATO.

The proposed settlement offers a diplomatic alternative to confrontation, but its significance extends well beyond the immediate dispute. Greenland is becoming a test of whether strategic necessity can be invoked to justify arrangements that substantially alter the rights of those who inhabit a territory. Washington’s interest is not difficult to understand. Greenland occupies a critical position between North America and Europe, overlooking important Arctic and North Atlantic approaches. Its importance is likely to grow as melting ice opens new maritime routes and intensifies competition over resources. The United States also regards the island as integral to its missile-defence ambitions and to containing Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic.

Yet geography does not........

© The Statesman