Editor's note: He Weiwen is a senior fellow at the Center for China and Globalization. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

US President Donald Trump on January 21 reaffirmed the US's intent to annex Greenland, when he addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, although he used the word "acquisition". There have seemingly been some retreats from his previous hard stance. 

He did not mention annexation of Greenland by armed force, as several European countries quickly responded by sending forces to Greenland as a symbol of European defense of the sovereign territory of its member Denmark. Also, his war plan was bluntly rejected by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the grounds that the administration has no right to launch such a war. Trump has also dropped his previous threat of additional tariffs on eight European countries that had opposed his Greenland annexation plan.

On January 22, Trump said to Fox News that he had reached a framework agreement on Greenland's defense with Mark Rutte, NATO's secretary general, which awarded the US "unlimited right of use" in Greenland for defense purposes, without Denmark ceding any territory. This "agreement", however, was immediately denied by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who claimed that NATO had no power to negotiate Greenland's defense and that Denmark and the US already had a defense agreement in place over Greenland since 1951.

Nonetheless, what we should remain highly vigilant about is what Trump claimed during his Davos address. He had made it clear that the US must annex Greenland as a part of US territory. He even went so far as to claim to discuss the acquisition of Greenland — "just as we have acquired many other territories throughout our history."

To make the case more bluntly, Trump claimed, "We need it for the strategic national security and international security. This enormous unsettled island is actually part of North America, in the Western Hemisphere. That's our territory."

Before weighing any reasons Trump has given, we should bluntly reject his Greenland annexation plan. Greenland is a part of Denmark, a sovereign state and member of the UN. The international order over the 80 years of post-war history has rested on and been secured by the UN Charter and its principles, which admit and respect the sovereignty of each of its member states, and state that the sovereignty of all its members, large or small, is equal. Territory is sacrosanct to sovereignty. No UN member has the right to annex the sovereign territory of another UN member. The US annexation of Greenland, no matter the "reasons" and in whatever way, will be in total violation of the UN Charter and the post-war international laws. Non-aggression and non-annexation of another state's sovereign territory is the master law prevailing over all "reasons" for any intended annexation of Greenland.

Trump is bluntly challenging the UN Charter and international law. He claimed that the US could repeat its historical annexation of California and Texas from Mexico by war, and that all territories in the Western Hemisphere are "our territory". In other words, if the world does nothing and simply looks on as Greenland becomes part of US territory, the comity of nations will, to a certain extent, be retreating into the law of the jungle of the 18th and 19th centuries, which would be a grave disaster for the world as we know it.

Trump's so-called compelling reasons regarding "national security and international security" for the annexation of Greenland are, in fact, no reason at all.

The US has existed for 250 years and has remained safe and secure without possessing Greenland. Greenland has been the territory of Denmark since 1814, or for over two hundred years, and has not posed any national or international security threat to the US. During World War II, Denmark permitted US military deployment on Greenland soil to safeguard against possible German aggression, with no territory being ceded by Denmark, and it worked well. Today, the US could extend the defense agreement with Denmark, without any territory needing to change hands.

The rich natural resources in Greenland are no reason for the US to want to acquire it either. It can have a trade and investment arrangement with Denmark. There are also rich resources in Australia, Saudi Arabia, etc. The US has trade or investment arrangements with them without having to resort to the acquisition of their territories.

The Arctic Sea route issue is similarly a non-issue. The east route covers Russia and Europe on the Eastern Hemisphere, which has nothing to do with Greenland which is in the Western Hemisphere. The central and west routes involve Greenland but have little to do with the US. The US west coast sea route is in the Pacific Ocean, and has nothing to do with Greenland, and its east coast sea route, in the Atlantic Ocean, is at a much lower latitude, 2000 km away from Greenland.

Trump's argument on the so-called China threat in Greenland is no more than a complete malicious fabrication. China only uses the Arctic sea route to northern Russia and the Scandinavian Peninsula, all in the Eastern Hemisphere. Its sea route to North America and Latin America is via the Pacific Ocean, and has nothing to do with Greenland in either case.

All the so-called "national security and international security" reasons are only a narrative for acquisition, or in essence, annexation of Greenland, the sovereign territory of Denmark. It is not only an issue between the US and Denmark, or Europe, but involves all UN member states. Shall we uphold the UN Charter and defend the sovereign territorial integrity of a UN member state, or leave it to be annexed by another member in whatever way? China has already made it crystal clear that the UN Charter and sovereign territory must be upheld. All UN member states should work together to stop the annexation of a sovereign territory and secure world peace and the international order based on the UN Charter. The international order is facing a serious challenge and there is no other choice.