The current year has been eventful in terms of the number of affairs the global political community has experienced. This is only consistent to the general trajectory in global geopolitics where we see an increase of affairs in varying fields and conflicts of interest.
Yearly, there are a number of historically significant diplomatic and geopolitical happenings that influence global political conduct. Their effect is inevitably projected through how the conventional practice in political culture, the economic spheres of influence, and the strategic powers have changed.
For the United States, the 2020 elections that are scheduled for November of next year are indubitably something that has taken its toll on the decision making within American domestic and international politics. For the whole duration of Trump’s time in the oval office, next year’s elections have been on the agenda of public discourse. This has happened on all levels of academic and political engagement.
We have seen polemic within the intelligentsia and activity within the parties in terms of the election, favorable conditions and possible outcome. Moreover, as never seen before, Trump unofficially began his campaign for the 2020 election on the day of his inauguration in 2017. Now that we are months away from the year of decision we have accordingly familiarized ourselves to the faces of the race that is to follow.
In August news from the White House leaked to the press how Trump’s administration is interested in buying the island of Greenland from Denmark. The prime minister of Denmark even commented on the matter denying any possibility of a sale happening.
Trump later asserted how the idea of doing so has been discussed, although not a priority for his administration. The president of the US also mentioned how Greenland presents a net negative for Denmark in regard to all of the subsidies it provides to autonomous Greenland and how that should be eventually taken into consideration if talks were to ever happen, since the US economy would be in a more favorable position for such an endeavor.
The history of US territorial expansion has been plentiful and eventful. There are the examples of the purchases of California, Nevada, Florida, Utah, Arizona, the Louisiana territories and Alaska – all territories on the North American continent. Naturally, the idea of buying Greenland has previously been present in American politics. The first mention of it is during the time of the purchase of Alaska in 1867. At the time, the idea was to annex Iceland and Greenland together, this was welcomed within the political circles of Washington and it garnered serious consideration.
The second instance of the conversation resurfacing was is in 1910 through diplomatic canals. In that time period the US negotiated many purchases of territories controlled by European powers. Following the Second World War, the Truman administration offered a purchase of Greenland as it previously held military control of it during the war as a preventive to it falling in the hands of Nazi Germany.
Military control of Greenland meant a huge deal for the US during the Cold-War as it would have provided an advantage in a military conflict between the nations as the control of the island would mean that the US would be territorially close the Soviet Union. The location of Greenland is interestingly at the half-way point between the two capitals of both countries.
The geopolitical question of the Arctic Circle is one of the greatest of our time, due its location between three continents: Europe, Asia, and America. This location provides an invaluable treasure, incredibly short trading routes. In addition, the Arctic has drawn geopolitical interest in many varying areas of interest. The greatest elements regarding the land, its vulnerable environment and the looming threat of the effects of global warming, has been thoroughly articulated in the international politics.
For the countries that have territories within the circle,the domestic policy has largely been influenced by it. Therefore it gives shape to a power struggle within the countries respectively, as well as between the diplomatic, military, and strategic apparatuses of the nations.
In the domain of international cooperation all countries of the Artic – Russia, Denmark, the United States, Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and Iceland – have been willing to conduct themselves on the principles of mutual solidarity. But over time, we have seen an increase in interest from the militaries of these countries, looking to fortify new bases as a means to fulfil their strategic goals.
The most exuberating component of the race for supremacy in the circle is manifested through the interest on its ice sheets. The fastened effect of global warming has gradually heightened the attention in this territory, due to the possibility of obtaining and maneuvering resources buried under the ice sheets.
It is estimated to hold a total of 30% of the world’s natural gas reserves and 13% of the oil reserves, as well as a considerable quantity of minerals such as zinc, nickel, ore, diamonds, and copper. This would provide the economies of the aforementioned countries with a substantial upper-hand in regard to international trade.
The control of these resources as well as the trading routes would provide an advantage to those controlling them. As the ice sheets melt, the seas will be navigable for a longer period during the year. This would allow for an amplified use of the Northern Sea Route, which in return would have a large impact on all aspects of international trade policy and trade routes.
With the Northern Sea Route it is estimated that the average time of sailing time is 10 days shorter in comparison to travel through the Suez Canal. What this means is that we might experience a shift in how global economic trends will be unfolding in the future. All of these factors lead us to the conclusion in the molding of expectations in regard to what shapes these diplomatic skirmishes might evolve into.
Image Source: ArcticToday