Greenland is not a 'framework'

Editor's note: Xu Ying is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator for CGTN. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

U.S. President Donald Trump's recent announcement at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2026 in Davos of a "framework of a future deal" on Greenland has been called by some Western observers a welcome step toward de-escalation. After weeks of diplomatic turbulence triggered by unprecedented annexation rhetoric, the renunciation of force and withdrawal of threatened tariffs were widely portrayed as a return to reason.

Such assessments, however, confuse tactical retreat with strategic correction. A closer examination suggests that what is unfolding is not the restoration of international norms, but their recalibration under pressure – where power politics is softened in tone yet preserved in substance.

De-escalation in form, not in essence

Trump's public statement that he would not use military force to acquire Greenland undoubtedly reduced immediate tensions. Yet diplomacy should be judged not by declarations alone, but by the structural implications of proposed arrangements. The reported elements of the Davos "framework" – expanded U.S. military access, quasi-sovereign base areas, preferential mineral rights, and the integration of Greenland into a U.S.-led "Golden Dome" missile defense system – point to an ambition that goes well beyond defensive cooperation.

This approach allows Washington to deny territorial ambition while achieving many of its practical objectives. The danger lies not in what is said, but in what becomes normalized: the idea that sovereignty can be functionally hollowed out through security and economic leverage.

Sovereignty is not a bargaining tool

International law has little ambiguity on this point. Greenland, despite its extensive self-governing authority, remains part of Denmark. This has been unequivocally reaffirmed by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, both of whom stressed that sovereignty is not subject to negotiation.

Any "update" of the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement between Denmark and the U.S. must therefore occur strictly within the framework of Danish sovereignty and Greenlandic consent. Attempts to stretch defense cooperation into exclusive military zones or permanent strategic privileges risk crossing a legal and political red line. History shows that arrangements imposed under pressure – however carefully worded – rarely endure without generating resistance.

The strong public response in Nuuk and Copenhagen, including protests under the slogan "Hands Off Greenland," reflects not only popular sentiment but a broader concern: that smaller political entities are once again being treated as objects rather than subjects of international relations.

Resource security or resource nationalism?

The Arctic's growing importance is driven as much by geology as by geopolitics. Greenland's rare earth deposits are undeniably significant for global supply chains, including energy transition technologies, and the reported intent to grant preferential access to U.S. and NATO actors while explicitly excluding Chinese participation raises uncomfortable questions.

Resource cooperation governed by market principles and host-country consent is one thing; strategic resource enclosure is another. When access is determined not by economic competitiveness or environmental responsibility, but by alliance alignment, the line between security policy and economic coercion becomes blurred.

China has consistently stated that its Arctic engagement is peaceful, transparent, and conducted in accordance with international law. Scientific research, environmental protection, and mutually beneficial economic cooperation do not constitute a threat. Portraying them as such risks turning the Arctic from a shared space of governance into a fragmented arena of exclusion.

Erosion of trust among allies

Perhaps the most significant outcome of the Greenland episode is not U.S.-China friction, but transatlantic unease. The fact that Danish intelligence has for the first time regarded the United States as a potential security concern speaks volumes.

Alliances depend on predictability and mutual respect. When threats of annexation – even rhetorical ones – are introduced into alliance politics, reassurance becomes harder. The subsequent softening of language cannot fully undo the shock such statements create.

A test case for the Arctic's future

The Arctic has long been governed by restraint, legalism, and cooperation. It is one of the few regions where great powers historically managed competition without militarization or ideological confrontation. The Greenland crisis tests whether this tradition can survive an era of intensified great-power rivalry.

True de-escalation requires more than renouncing force after applying pressure. It demands respect for sovereignty, rejection of zero-sum logic, and recognition that security cannot be built through exclusion. Frameworks may be negotiated and revised, but fundamental principles cannot be selectively applied.

If the Arctic is to remain a region of stability rather than rivalry, it must not become a proving ground for 21st-century power politics dressed in diplomatic language. Greenland is not a bargaining chip or a strategic asset to be rearranged – it is a reminder that international order rests not on strength alone, but on law.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)