Analysis of Stephen Miller’s Greenland Annexation Remarks
Stephen Miller has once again stirred the pot in U.S.-Greenland relations with his recent claims about the need to annex the territory. During a national interview, he stated that Greenland “should be part of the United States,” a sentiment that brings to light the complexities of sovereignty and international diplomacy. His framing positions the annexation as a matter of strategic necessity, particularly for NATO defense.
Miller’s assertion challenges Denmark’s control over Greenland and reflects a belief that the U.S. must secure its northern flank against threats. He stated, “The U.S. is the power of NATO. To defend NATO, Greenland should be part of the U.S.” Such rhetoric echoes former President Donald Trump, who previously expressed interest in acquiring Greenland for similar reasons, citing national security and economic interests.
However, these views have faced significant pushback. Denmark and Greenland have both firmly rejected U.S. claims of entitlement to the territory. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen labeled Trump’s past proposals as “absurd,” highlighting a larger diplomatic rift—one that could be exacerbated by Miller’s comments. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen bluntly insisted that there be “no more pressure” regarding any thoughts of annexation.
The response from European leaders reinforces the idea that claims over territory cannot occur through coercion. A spokesperson for France reiterated in 2020, “Borders cannot be changed by force.” This underscores the international legal framework that governs territorial integrity and respect for nations’ sovereignty, a principle that Miller’s rhetoric seemingly overlooks.
Miller’s argument for annexation ties back to the strategic significance of Greenland in the context of Arctic security. The melting ice in the region has made it a focal point for shipping routes and mineral resources. As interests from Russia and China are perceived to be growing, proponents of U.S. control argue it would enhance national security. Miller suggested, “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” echoing Trump’s concerns about foreign activities in the Arctic. Yet, evidence does not substantiate claims of significant hostile naval movements by these nations around Greenland.
Since the initial discussions about purchasing Greenland in 2019, tensions have bubbled over periodically. The social media storm following Katie Miller’s controversial post, which depicted Greenland with the American flag, added fuel to the fire. It led to strong reactions from Greenlandic officials, further emphasizing the sensitivity surrounding this topic.
The legal and political ramifications of Miller’s statements cannot be ignored. While the U.S. views Greenland’s increasing strategic importance, its status is enshrined in its relationship with Denmark. Greenland conducts its domestic affairs but still relies on Denmark for defense and foreign policy. The political weighing of security against the backdrop of longstanding diplomatic relationships adds complexity to the U.S. narrative regarding annexation.
International law maintains that territorial changes cannot occur through coercion. This principle complicates Miller’s calls for annexation and presents potential legal ramifications that could follow any unilateral action. NATO agreements also reinforce these boundaries, asserting that an attack on one ally is an attack on all. Any attempts to assert U.S. control over Greenland could fracture this alliance and undermine mutual respect among NATO members.
While Miller may no longer be in government, his influence and rhetoric reflect a segment of American political thought that intertwines national security with territorial ambitions. His continued assertions may signal a re-emergent policy perspective should a Trump-like figure return to power. For now, Denmark remains steadfast in its rejection of any U.S. pressure regarding Greenland, with PM Frederiksen declaring emphatically, “Greenland is not for sale and not up for pressure.”
The future of Greenland, as both a territory and a subject of international discourse, remains uncertain. It sits at the crossroads of shifting global power dynamics and increasing strategic interest. Whether these factors lead to new U.S. ambitions or strengthened cooperation within NATO will largely depend on future leadership directions in Washington.
"*" indicates required fields
