The Geopolitics of Rare Earth Minerals: Greenland as a New Focal Point on the Global Power Map

We are currently living in a complex and rapidly changing world, where state power, technological advancement, and human moral values intertwine to shape the framework of future justice and ethics. Today, a territory is no longer merely a part of a map; it has become a symbol of power, resources, and dominance. The recent aggressive posture of the United States toward Greenland has made this reality strikingly clear. The intense debate surrounding Greenland reflects a new global political reality is one in which the criteria of power have fundamentally changed. Diplomatic courtesy or military strength alone are no longer the sole instruments of influence; control over resources has become the new trajectory of state power. The tensions surrounding Greenland are rooted in the raw material crisis of technology-dependent economies, the fragility of the global security architecture, and the expansionist impulses of American dominance. In the twenty-first century, power is no longer confined to oil or gas; the backbone of power is now rare earth minerals. Without these minerals, electric vehicles, batteries, wind turbines, and even military equipment would become nearly inoperable. Yet, the world faces a significant shortage of these resources, compounded by vulnerabilities in supply and processing chains. In this context, the vast mineral reserves beneath Greenland’s soil represent an enormous opportunity for the entire world. In an era where dominance and empowerment hinge on rare earth minerals, control over Greenland would transform its underground potential into an instrument of future control rather than merely a source of wealth. Another critical dimension is security. For a long time, the Arctic region was considered the fringe of civilization. Climate change has shattered that notion. As ice melts, new shipping routes are opening, and military and commercial access is becoming easier. Consequently, Greenland has emerged as a new geopolitical arena. The state that establishes influence here will play a decisive role in shaping the future balance of global security. The United States appears eager to capitalize on this opportunity. However, perhaps the most sensitive aspect of this issue lies in what may be an underlying crisis of confidence in American power. For decades, the global order functioned in a way where the United States made the rules and others followed. Today, however, America’s dependence on global technology, production, and supply chains has increased, while its self-sufficiency has diminished. The loud invocation of “national security” may therefore be less a declaration of strength and more an expression of fear and fear of losing power. Against this backdrop, the developments surrounding Greenland are deeply unsettling. In arenas of international power politics, pressure is increasingly replacing negotiation as the primary tool of statecraft. This is not diplomacy; it is a mentality of domination. If such a language of power gains legitimacy, international law will be reduced to mere documentation. This trajectory is neither desirable nor sustainable. There are striking parallels with Venezuela’s experience, where political pressure, economic sanctions, and attempts at regime change were justified in the name of oil. While the language surrounding Greenland is different, the philosophy remains the same: where resources exist, control must follow. The difference this time is that the target is a territory with a relatively small population but immense strategic value. In this context, the positions of Denmark and Greenland are not merely political reactions; they represent a moral stance. Sovereignty cannot be treated as a commodity with a market price. Excluding a region’s people from decisions about their future would constitute a new, aggressive, and deeply troubling form of modern colonialism. The freedom Greenland’s people seek is not under the shadow of any power, but rooted in their own identity. From a practical standpoint, mineral extraction is neither simple nor immediate. It requires time, capital, technology, and environmental compromise. There is no instant economic gain for the United States in this regard. This naturally raises the question: why such aggressive interest? The answer lies not in immediate production, but in securing future control structures. The state that establishes its position today will define the rules, norms, and authority of the coming decades. The danger of this path is immense. It threatens to fracture NATO’s internal unity, intensify military competition in the Arctic, and legitimize resource-based aggression. Most alarmingly, it sets a precedent that powerful states can claim weaker or smaller regions at will. If this notion takes hold, international law will become meaningless, and the sovereignty, independence, and human rights of smaller states will be systematically eroded, plunging the world into disorder. This moment demands decisive action. The European Union and NATO must clarify and strengthen their positions. The right to self-determination of the people of Greenland must be upheld. International regulatory frameworks governing resource politics must be reinforced. If the world remains silent in the face of American actions today, the very concepts of independence and sovereignty may one day disappear from our dictionaries. Ultimately, Greenland is not merely an island; it is a symbol of twenty-first-century power. Rather than accepting this new form of resource-driven imperialism, leading nations must become more vigilant, cautious, and strategic. Every country must stand in solidarity against this emerging neo-imperialism of resources. Only then can global order be preserved, and the independence and sovereignty of all nations be protected.