The World Is Unsafe Without Greenland: A New Geopolitical Alarm for Indonesia - Center for Geopolitic and Geostrategic Studies

The international community was jolted when U.S. President Donald Trump declared, “the world will not be safe unless the United States controls Greenland.” Quoted widely by the international press, the statement inevitably echoed a past long believed to have been buried. This was not merely a spontaneous remark by a populist leader, but a sign that the current of history is bending back toward an old logic: might makes right.

Since the end of World War II, humanity has agreed to write a new chapter—one in which sovereignty must not be violated, territory is no longer spoils of conquest, and international law serves as the moral fence of civilization. Yet beneath Greenland’s ice lies a primal temptation that has never truly died: the desire of great powers to expand their influence whenever strategic opportunities arise.

This crack in the wall of global norms signals that the world is once again being tested by ancient instincts of power. Trump did not stop at expressing a desire to purchase Greenland; he accompanied it with threats of economic tariffs against European countries that rejected his plan. Diplomacy once cloaked in the language of consensus has now shifted into a calculus of pressure.

When Denmark is portrayed as incapable of protecting Greenland from Russia and China, a narrative of threat is constructed to legitimize dominance. This is a classic geopolitical pattern: fear is weaponized to gain control.

The world is witnessing how an order built on agreement is gradually giving way to an order shaped by coercion. This is clearly a dangerous precedent for the global system. If territorial control through pressure is once again deemed acceptable, international law—the primary safeguard for small and middle powers—will be weakened.

For Indonesia, the echoes of the struggle over Greenland reach all the way to the equator. Geopolitical shifts in the Arctic are not distant events; they touch the very arteries of Indonesia’s maritime interests. Melting ice opens northern shipping routes that could divert part of Asia–Europe trade flows away from the Strait of Malacca, one of Indonesia’s economic lifelines. If global routes shift, Indonesia’s strategic position as a maritime محور (axis) is also put at stake.

Rivalry among the United States, Russia, and China in the Arctic risks triggering global tensions that could spill into the Indo-Pacific, where Indonesia stands as an anchor of stability. The erosion of sovereignty norms in Greenland thus serves as an early warning for Indonesia: the international legal order that protects national territory and sovereignty must not be allowed to collapse.

The story of Greenland is a mirror of the future global order and a reminder for Indonesia. The world does not become unsafe because America does not control Greenland; it becomes unsafe when ambitions of domination are once again considered legitimate.

Shaping the Future of the World

Greenland is not merely an ice-covered landmass at the northern edge of the world. It is a strategic node where military, economic, and global trade dynamics converge in a once-overlooked silent space. Located along the GIUK Gap—the corridor between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom—the island serves as the Arctic’s main gateway to the North Atlantic.

In modern defense logic, whoever controls Greenland gains eyes and ears over submarine movements, naval fleets, and transoceanic air routes. It is here that the balance of global maritime power is both maintained and contested.

Greenland’s allure lies not only in its position on the defense map, but also in climate change, which is opening a new destiny for the Arctic. Melting ice is gradually unveiling the Northern Sea Route, a shipping lane that can cut Asia–Europe travel distances nearly in half compared to traditional routes via the Strait of Malacca and the Suez Canal.

Beneath the seemingly eternal ice, Greenland holds deposits of rare earth minerals, uranium, and strategic energy reserves. In the era of green energy transition and digital industry, rare earth elements are critical for batteries, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and modern defense systems.

Global dependence on China’s supply makes Greenland’s reserves a new prize in resource diplomacy. Thus, the contest over Greenland is not merely territorial, but a struggle over the future of technology and global industrial independence.

As major powers recognize Greenland’s value, the icy island transforms from a silent space into a stage of influence competition. The United States, Russia, and China now view the Arctic as a new frontier of power. At this point, geopolitics once again reveals its old face: strategic territory invites competition, and competition always carries the potential for conflict.

Greenland has become a symbol of how nature, technology, and human ambition converge in a vortex of interests that is difficult to control.

The Fracturing of Western Solidarity

On another front, Europe’s response to Trump’s ambitions reveals a profound dilemma within the Western world—like an old house once appearing solid, now beginning to crack from within. Denmark and the Greenlandic government firmly stated that the island is not for sale, a simple yet powerful assertion of sovereign dignity. The European Union condemned tariff threats as economic coercion, while discussions began on deploying NATO forces to strengthen Greenland’s defense.

Ironically, a military alliance led for decades by the United States now finds itself preparing to face pressure from its own leading power. In diplomatic silence, the world watches long-standing solidarity tested by new ambitions. This situation marks a deep shift in Western architecture.

Where threats were once imagined to come from outside—from the Eastern bloc, Russia, or China’s rise—conflicts of interest now emerge from within the alliance itself. When Trump declared he was “no longer obligated to think solely about peace,” America appeared to shed its role as guardian of the liberal order and don a new mantle as a revisionist actor.

The world thus wonders: is the West still a single body, or merely a collection of organs moving by their own instincts?

For Europe, defending Greenland is not merely a geographic issue, but a test of sovereign credibility. If Denmark were to yield to American pressure, the message to the world would be clear: small states can be forced to relinquish territory to great powers. Such a precedent would erode trust in international law.

History teaches that when such precedents are allowed, power will always seek its next victim. The echoes of this crisis therefore do not stop in the North Atlantic—they spread to other regions, including Asia and the Pacific.

For developing countries like Indonesia, the erosion of global sovereignty principles is a loud alarm. Indonesia’s territorial security has long relied not only on national military strength, but also on international norms prohibiting forced annexation. If these norms weaken, all archipelagic states and all countries with strategic territories become vulnerable to great power ambitions.

Amid this vortex, Indonesia is reminded that sovereignty is not an eternal gift, but a mandate that must be safeguarded through vigilance, active diplomacy, and national strength rooted in unity. When the fences of global law begin to loosen, only nations aware of their place in history’s current can withstand the geopolitical storm.

Rivalry Among the Three Global Giants

Greenland now stands at the heart of a triangular rivalry among the United States, Russia, and China—once a silent island, suddenly the gravitational center of global power. Russia has long entrenched its interests in the Arctic, building military bases, icebreaker fleets, and advanced radar systems as part of its northern defense belt.

China, though not an Arctic state, has declared itself a near-Arctic state and woven its ambitions through the Polar Silk Road, an economic corridor linking Asia and Europe via the North Pole.

The United States views these developments as a warning to its dominance. Russia’s growing assertiveness and China’s expanding economic reach into frozen territories have pushed Washington to seek new strategic footholds.

Here, Greenland is perceived as a geopolitical shortcut—a control point capable of balancing its two northern rivals. Thus, the Arctic, once a laboratory of scientific cooperation, has become a chessboard on which global giants arrange their tactical moves.

As ice melts, conflict hardens. New shipping routes open, natural resources are exposed, and military space expands. All of this creates a new geopolitical frontier—new arenas for competition, new tensions, and potentially new conflicts.

In this era, climate change is not only an environmental crisis, but also a geopolitical catalyst reshaping the global power map. Nature and human ambition converge in a vortex that is difficult to control. Trump’s statement on Greenland is therefore not a fleeting outburst, but a reflection of an ongoing shift in global power structures.

The world is moving from a unipolar order toward harsh multipolar competition. For Indonesia, this shift is a reminder that global dynamics are never truly distant. Rivalry in the Arctic can spill into the Indo-Pacific, affecting trade route stability, maritime security, and regional power balance.

In an increasingly hard and competitive world, Indonesia is called upon to read the winds of history clearly: strengthening its free and active diplomacy, safeguarding maritime sovereignty, and building resilient national power. In geopolitics, survival belongs not only to the strong, but to those who understand change before it arrives.

An Alarm for Indonesia: Diplomacy and Sovereignty

Indonesia must therefore recognize that the struggle over Greenland is not a distant story confined to the polar north. It is precisely there that a geopolitical alarm sounds—softly, yet unmistakably.

The Strait of Malacca has long been one of the world’s busiest trade routes, a vital artery linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans and the foundation of Indonesia’s maritime economy. But as Arctic ice melts and the Northern Sea Route opens, parts of Asia–Europe trade will find a shorter alternative.

If that happens, the strategic value of the Strait of Malacca will no longer be absolute. As global routes shift, Indonesia’s position in the global logistics chain will be tested by the changing times. This demands an immediate strategic response: accelerating port modernization, strengthening inter-island connectivity, improving logistics efficiency, and ensuring maritime security.

In trade geopolitics, geography alone is insufficient; infrastructure competitiveness and governance are decisive. Yet this challenge extends beyond ports and ships—it strikes at the heart of diplomacy. In a world increasingly divided by great power rivalry, Indonesia’s free and active foreign policy regains its relevance.

Indonesia must consistently advocate respect for sovereignty, reject forced annexation, and promote peaceful resolution through multilateral forums such as the United Nations. The non-aligned principle inherited from the Asia–Africa Conference is not historical romanticism, but a survival strategy in a world growing harsher and more transactional.

The issue of Greenland’s strategic minerals reminds us that resource competition will define a new chapter of global geopolitics. Rare earth elements—now the lifeblood of modern technology—are essential for electric vehicles, renewable energy, and defense systems. Global dependence on limited supplies fuels subtle yet decisive competition.

As a resource-rich country, Indonesia must strengthen economic diplomacy, secure access to global supply chains, and manage domestic mineral potential in a sovereign and sustainable manner. Natural resources are no longer mere commodities; they are instruments of economic sovereignty.

Greenland may be an icy island at the world’s edge, but the struggle over it ripples into Indonesia’s tropical waters. Between melting polar ice and shifting trade routes, Indonesia faces a new test: remain a spectator of change, or become an actor capable of crafting strategies for a rapidly moving world.

Indonesia requires readiness in geostrategy, defense planning, and geopolitics—so that national resilience is upheld. In the end, it is not only the strong who endure, but those who can read the signs of the times before the great waves crash upon their shores.

Prof. Dr. Ermaya Suradinata, SH, MH, MS
Rector of IPDN (2015–2018); Former Director General of Socio-Political Affairs, Ministry of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia (1999–2001); Former Governor of the National Resilience Institute (LEMHANNAS RI) (2001–2005)