Thawing the tension: U.S.-Greenland relations and climate change (non)securitization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
U.S. Arctic foreign policy and the U.S. influence on Greenland has been studied predominantly regarding U.S. military and defence concerns. However, during the Trump Administration, the U.S. Arctic foreign policy agenda significantly shifted, placing Greenland as an integral component of the 2017-2021 Republican administration’s Arctic geopolitical aspirations, and not only for defence purposes. I argue that U.S-Greenland relations were significantly impacted when President Trump offered to purchase Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark in the summer of 2019. Following the offer, Greenland emerged as a focal point of the Trump Administration’s geopolitical and economic security interests in the Arctic. Consequently, Greenland finds itself at the centre of a complex Arctic arena, with vastly larger and more powerful states taking an interest in Greenland’s economic potential due to its natural resources. Nevertheless, Trump’s offer was highly problematic as Greenland is an Inuit nation with the political goal to become independent from their colonial ties with Denmark. Despite the offer causing initial outrage, U.S.-Greenland collaborative relations have only developed since. I analyze why this has occurred, conveying that the similar approaches of Trump and Greenland towards climate change created the possibility for the strengthening of U.S.-Greenland bilateral relations. Climate change threatens the Arctic, yet the melting ice also provides more accessibility to rich natural resources. Climate change therefore presents not only threats, but opportunities. Greenland has a right and desire to pursue economic development for a financially viable independence through utilizing carboniferous, extractive industries. The U.S. has also sought to utilize the economic opportunity that Arctic climate change presents but with different motives. The U.S. and Greenland have subsequently become interlinked in a complex Arctic constellation of foreign policy and economic opportunity. Regardless of changing approaches to climate change, the Trump Administration has significantly impacted the future of U.S.-Greenland relations and Greenland’s political future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".