“History,
in this sense, has always been governed by power, shaped by power, constructed
by power, and sustained by power largely unencumbered by innocence. Power, as
history repeatedly demonstrates, does not seek permission it advances, and
others are compelled to adjust”
Advocate Igosha January 5th 2026 televised
analysis on US involvement in Venezuela.
What we are witnessing today is not a mere extension of the United States’ hemispheric role, but the emergence of a distinct doctrine of power projection, what may be described as the Trump Doctrine, or, more pointedly, the Donroe Doctrine, and the manifestation of the Trump Collorary, which is a fusion of Trumpian unilateralism with the Monroe Doctrine, culminating in a contemporary corollary of force.
The old adage that “might makes right” is reasserting itself within the international order, echoing the logic first crystallized during the 1895 Venezuelan Boundary Crisis, when the United States asserted hemispheric authority through coercive diplomacy rather than consent.
It has now also been asserted after the US
intervention in Venezuela on 3rd January 2026, under a military
operation dubbed Operation absolute Resolve.
History,
in this sense, has always been governed by power, shaped by power, constructed
by power, and sustained by power largely unencumbered by innocence. Power, as
history repeatedly demonstrates, does not seek permission it advances, and
others are compelled to adjust.
In
contemporary Great power politics, we are witnessing Thucydides famous quote,
in practical action “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what
they must.”
A
new era of the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Colloary:
“The
Monroe Doctrine, articulated in 1823, by President James Monroe, declared U.S.
opposition to European colonization or interference in the Americas,
establishing the Western Hemisphere as an American sphere of influence. The
Roosevelt Corollary brought by 26th US president Theodore Roosevelt,
also known as Teddy (1904) extended this principle, asserting a U.S. right to
intervene proactively in Latin American states to maintain stability and order.
Contemporary Trump’s actions and rhetoric is reminiscent of these two
doctrines.
Will the US take Greenland?
Plausible.
Given the current signals of Trump hemispheric doctrine under Monroe doctrine
2.0. one has to remember the old concept of US Manifest Destiny on the question
of Greenland. But this will set the West’s World War two quondam ally, Russia to
view US involvement in Greenland as a strategic threat and it could put NATO in
an existential threat. It will be an antithesis of the western alliance for one
key member to signal interest on another ally’s sovereign territory.
On
January 9th President Donald Trump said the US will occupy Greenland
whether they like it or not. “Arguing that they are going to do it the easy
way, or the hard way. As in his view, Greenland is critical to US national
security interests to counter Russian and Chinese interests. So will the US
take Greenland, it’s plausible to say, by Manifest Destiny Yes.
Understanding
Manifest Destiny in the era of Donald Trump.
The
famous aphorism of Roosevelt, “speak softly and carry a big stick”
signaled his robust approach of promoting American imperial interests under the
Roosevelt Corollary. Under Donald Trump, the world must know clearly where
America stands. The US administration has spoken more frequently about
Greenland in the wake of the US special operation to depose the Venezuelan
President Nicolas Maduro. And one of key US official said, ‘we now live in a
world in which you can talk about international niceties and everything else,
but in the real world, it is governance by force, that is governed by Power’. Stephen
Miller, white house Deputy Chief of Staff January 5, 2026.
What Sovereign Greenlanders need to understand is the fact that US global ambitions in the 21st are beyond the color line, but influenced by the strong belief in Manifest Destiny.
Donald Trumps rhetoric, speeches and nominations suggest that he has a broad perspective on the contemporary US position on Earth and rival challengers in the world, his rhetoric is reminiscent of that of Theodore Roosevelt, James Monroe, and John Louis O’Sullivan, who coined the concept Manifest Destiny, in which he believed America was divinely ordained mission of the United States to expand westward across North America, spreading what he believed were American values and institutions.
And such expansion was limitless in territorial claims, where he explained it was God’s will under heaven for the cause is just.
So contemporary substance in American foreign
policy is the moral mission of manifest destiny, that land seizure is a moral
mission, territorial claim is a moral mission, in other words US interests
shall remain vital beyond geographical predestination of contiguous United
States.
Can
Denmark Defend its Sovereign territory after sensitive Trump rhetoric on
Greenland.
On August 4 1916, Denmark sold the Virgin Islands to the United States by 20 million dollars in Gold, because they were strategic to the US, and by then the US had recognized Greenland as Sovereign part of Denmark.
But over 10 decades,
US appetite has grown with the eating. The political necessity of defending
Greenland is not only to maintain the Sovereignty of a nation, but to keep the
survivorship of NATO.
The heart of man expansionists, under any doctrine see a self-proclaimed call to national destiny, but these purported doctrines are purely ambitions, a metaphysical dogma of geographical predestination.
But Danish diplomats and policy makers must understand the Trumpian frame of mind, a belief in grander America, opening up vaster horizons of national greatness to challenge the rise of China and Russia.
Greenland to Denmark is the ensemble naturel a natural
set of both geography and history as Alaska to the USA. Denmark’s strongest
diplomatic shield among other principles includes key allies like Canada and
the EU.
To
defend a rule-based order, nations that are active in a rule-based world order
and capable to stabilize arctic politics without escalation include Canada,
whose leader has both pragmatic skills, charisma and conservative values.
International
law and Sovereignty.
Man must limit territorial nexus. Under international law, the term Pacta sunt servanda” means every treaty or international agreement is legally binding on the parties who sign it and must be performed in good faith.
And it is also
a principle of international law codified under Article 26 of the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), which obliges States to perform
treaties in good faith. This obligation is reinforced by Article 2(2) of the
United Nations Charter, requiring all Members to fulfill in good faith the
obligations assumed under the Charter.
In the Greenland context, this principle binds both Denmark and the United States to respect existing treaty arrangements governing Greenland’s status and security.
Article 1 of the UN Charter, which affirms the equal rights and
self-determination of peoples, constrains any unilateral alteration of
Greenland’s status absent the freely expressed will of the Greenlandic people.
This
is complemented by Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat
or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of
any State, including among allies.
The
legal basis for U.S. presence in Greenland rests on the 1951 Agreement between
the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark relating to the Defense of
Greenland, which authorizes U.S. military facilities solely for defensive
purposes and does not transfer sovereignty or permit coercive expansion beyond
agreed defense needs.
Under
international law, this agreement must be interpreted in good faith pursuant to
Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention, governing treaty interpretation
according to ordinary meaning, context, and object and purpose.
Although the United States has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it recognizes its core provisions as customary international law.
Article 56 of UNCLOS, affirming coastal States’ sovereign rights
over continental shelves and exclusive economic zones, strengthens Denmark’s
legal position regarding Greenland’s maritime domains. Any competing claims
must therefore be pursued peacefully, consistent with Article 279 of UNCLOS.
The obligation of peaceful dispute settlement is further embedded in Article 33 of the UN Charter, which encourages negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and judicial settlement.
In this regard, recourse to bodies such as the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) offers a lawful mechanism to prevent escalation and preserve Arctic stability.
Taken together, international
law provides Denmark and Greenland with a coherent legal framework that
privileges consent, legality, and multilateralism over unilateralism and
coercion.
They
are good at their game!
You have to love the Americans. They are good at their game, and whether you hate them they are masters of their game in international politics, and in essence masters of the game.
In my opinion the US believes in the principle of political gravitation. Consider this, during the Venezuelan crisis of 1895 Senator Turpie affirmed that the guardianship of all republics of the American continent had come to the United States in part by force of political gravitation.” By then Secretary Lansing warned of Denmark failure to understand political gravitation of Danish west indies to the United States, and encouraged the possibility and necessity of seizure.
However, the acquisition
of Denmark colonies came by purchase. It
was a question of the Principle of Suzerainty of the United States over the
whole of western hemisphere by virtue of Monroe Doctrine and of course Manifest
destiny.
The
US could possibly walk its NATO allies on the principle of Suzerainty.
Contemporary international law does not recognize the principle of Suzerainty. It is considered as a nuanced status.
The enforcement of global norms, values
and international law has been selective. It all depends on the compos
mentis, that is the mental state of the President of the United
States. Under Principle of Suzerainty,
the Suzerain holds ultimate authority, but does not govern the vassals of
internal affairs
How
to solve the Question of Greenland in modern International law.
Throughout history, Global power has shifted and changed hands in the international system. Our contemporary arc of history is characterized by strategic competition between the two Superpowers, the US and China, and control of the oceans by the tripartite polars US, China and Russia who have effectively put the multilateral order in a tripolar complex.
Armed with knowledge of arctic prizes especially Greenland, the geopolitical forces want presence in Greenland. And Presence is Power.
So far, no nation
surpasses the US in ship building metrics but China, and Uncle Sam doesn’t like
it one bit. And Donald Trump being a
real estate magnate, believes the Arctic is Washington’s backyard and
Washington does not intend to welcome a squatter, especially China.
Under international law, the US presence in Greenland is subject to 1951 defence of Greenland agreement struck between the Danes and the Americans.
But this legal document continues to be prone to complex interpretations on the part of its signatories what is known as “Lawfare”.
One sides assessment of what is considered a threat, is often quite different of what constitutes as a threat by the other party.
Lawfare is about using legal tools, agreements, language or processes to further the position of a state and its national interest.
In this case, national interest of whom? As
an arctic member of the Arctic 5, it is strategically crucial for Denmark to
approach international law by consensus of the Arctic-5 State, the EU and
Sovereignty legitimate claims, and including UNCLOS, though the US has not
ratified the United Nations Convention of the law of the sea (UNCLOS) it still
views UNCLOS as customary international law.
And for lawfare practitioners, UNCLOS is the legal mecca under the guise
of international law.
The dispute body of the UN known as the Commission on the limits of the continental shelf (CLCS) could also be useful to avoid a potential clash.
I am afraid, NATO does not need to enter into a hybrid war with its strongest member, that could trigger a major rupture within Europe and possibly the end of NATO itself since 1947.
Europe needs to learn from history, Greenland
is nothing compared to the Louisiana purchase or annexation of Texas,
California, and other former Mexican lands.
This is challenging fit in diplomacy.
Peace
through dialogue versus Peace through strength: In 2024 Greenland’s foreign policy
in defence and security, strategy capitalized an intent to strengthen peace
through dialogue, contrary to US foreign policy posture of peace through
strength, and Trumps words are asserting a sensitive geopolitical climate on
the two foreign policies, as far as strategy is concerned.
All
International politics are based on local national interests.
As I am about to end in the final analysis of this opinion, reader should understand my position on contemporary Global politics on the matter.
To be in full disclosure, my state of opinion is no horse in Danish-American race on Greenland. I am neither Danish nor American, and of course I am not Greenlandic. Unknown to many, there is an ongoing narrative for Greenlandic people to own their own island.
But the foundation of Greenland’s sovereignty, is very much reflected in our local case of Khamis Machano and 18 others versus Republic.
But the argument in Greenland is very organic, from Greenlandic society itself, but Denmark still manages foreign policy, defence and security policies.
Though the draft constitution of Greenland begins, ‘the Greenlandic people are and always shall be self-determine, but the legal frameworks continue to assert Denmark as Sovereign.
In the final analysis, the question of Greenland is not merely about territory, minerals, or Arctic sea lanes it is a test of whether the contemporary international system still recognizes law as a constraint on power, or whether power has once again become law unto itself.
For North American readers, this debate should not be misread as anti-Americanism, but rather as a sober reminder that American leadership has historically drawn legitimacy from its ability to anchor power within law, alliances, and consent.
The strength of the United States has never rested solely on coercion, but on
its capacity to shape order while respecting rules it helped create.
For the international community, Greenland stands at the intersection of self-determination, alliance politics, and great-power rivalry.
Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is not a relic of colonial convenience, but a legal reality sustained by treaties, international recognition, and the freely expressed will of the Greenlandic people within an agreed constitutional framework.
Any deviation from this framework would not merely unsettle Denmark.
It would fracture NATO’s internal cohesion and weaken the very rules-based
order that has preserved Arctic stability for decades.
History teaches that doctrines rooted in destiny eventually collide with law, and when they do, the consequences reverberate far beyond the immediate theatre.
The resolution of the Greenland question therefore lies not in pressure, purchase, or provocation, but in fidelity to international law, respect for self-determination, and disciplined diplomacy among allies.
In an era of renewed power politics, restraint grounded in law is not weakness, it is strategic wisdom. Greenland does not need a new doctrine imposed upon it, but a reaffirmation that even in a world of Superpower Primacy, sovereignty, consent, and legality still matter.
If America must remain a leader of the free world, US policy advisors should not take Trump’s words comical, but an epitome of a man they know best, transactional and unpredictable.
He seriously needs to be
advised to respect a rule-based order, or we could be entering a bane of Arctic
instability, or a conflict never before witnessed in modern history.
Novatus IGOSHA is an Advocate of the High Court Tanzania and International Affairs Columnist. Mobile +255747130688 Email:norvum728@gmail.com