The Custodian of Sovereignty: Why the UN Must Decide the Fate of Greenland
In early 2026, the international community finds itself at a geopolitical crossroads. While President Trump has recently stepped back from threats of military force to acquire Greenland, the pivot toward “economic pressure”—including the weaponization of tariffs and coercive diplomacy—presents an equally grave challenge to global stability. To prevent the erosion of national sovereignty and the return of colonial-era land acquisitions, the United Nations (UN) must assert itself as the primary arbiter of Greenland’s fate. Furthermore, to safeguard the global economy from unilateral aggression, the power to regulate tariffs must be transferred from individual nations to the UN, establishing the organization as a “giant” capable of protecting the weak from the whims of the powerful.
The Myth of Non-Violent Coercion
The shift from military threats to economic pressure is often framed as a “peaceful” alternative, yet under international law, it remains a violation of the UN Charter. Article 2(4) prohibits not just the use of force, but also the threat of force against the territorial integrity of any state. Economic warfare—intended to destabilize an autonomous territory like Greenland or its sovereign partner, Denmark—is a form of “hybrid warfare” that targets the self-determination of a people.
Greenland is not a commodity for sale; it is a land inhabited by a distinct people with an established right to self-determination under the 2009 Self-Government Act. If a superpower can bypass the UN to “negotiate” for territory through economic strangulation, the very foundation of the rules-based order collapses. The UN must intervene to ensure that any change in Greenland’s status is dictated solely by the freely expressed will of the Greenlandic people, overseen by neutral international observers rather than under the shadow of unilateral sanctions.
The Case for Centralized Tariff Regulation
The current crisis has exposed a fundamental flaw in the global trade architecture: the ability of a single nation to use trade barriers as a tool of territorial expansion. President Trump’s recent use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to threaten allies with tariffs over Greenland demonstrates that economic tools are being used as weapons of conquest.
To prevent this, the UN—through a strengthened mandate for the World Trade Organization (WTO) or a new economic council—should be the sole body authorized to regulate and approve tariffs.
- Universal Standards: Tariffs should be based on objective global economic data, not political leverage.
- Conflict Prevention: By stripping individual nations of the power to impose unilateral “reciprocal” tariffs, the UN can prevent trade wars from escalating into territorial disputes.
- Protection of Small States: A UN-regulated system would ensure that small economies like Greenland or Denmark are not bullied into ceding sovereignty in exchange for market access.
The UN as a Global “Giant”
For the UN to fulfill its mandate of maintaining international peace, it can no longer be a passive observer. To the rest of the world, especially to the burgeoning “near-Arctic” powers and established alliances, the UN must appear as a “giant”—an entity with the legal and economic teeth to enforce its charters.
This requires the invocation of Article 99 of the UN Charter, allowing the Secretary-General to bring the Greenland crisis before the Security Council as a threat to international peace. If the UN can successfully regulate the economic levers of power and protect the territorial integrity of Greenland, it will send a definitive message: the era of “might makes right” is over.
The fate of Greenland is a litmus test for the 21st century. If the international community allows economic pressure to replace the rule of law, no nation is truly safe. By centralizing the power to regulate trade and affirming the absolute right of self-determination, the UN can transform from a forum of debate into a “giant” of justice, ensuring that the Arctic remains a zone of peace rather than a prize for the highest bidder.