In a stark declaration that has reignited debate over America's global posture, Stephen Miller, a key architect of Donald Trump's immigration policies, has asserted that the United States possesses the inherent right to acquire Greenland. The former White House senior advisor argued that the international order is fundamentally governed by force, not just laws or diplomacy.
The Controversial Claim: A Right to Territory
Miller made these provocative comments during a recent podcast interview. He was directly addressing and defending former President Donald Trump's much-discussed and ultimately unsuccessful 2019 interest in purchasing the vast, autonomous Danish territory. At the time, the proposal was met with bewilderment and swift rejection from Denmark, which called the idea "absurd."
Miller framed the potential acquisition not as a mere real estate deal, but as a legitimate exercise of national power. He contended that if a transaction could be negotiated that benefited both American and Greenlandic interests, the United States would be fully within its rights to proceed. His argument stripped away the veneer of diplomatic convention, suggesting that strategic national interests, backed by capability, form the true basis of territorial control.
A Philosophy of Power: "The World Is Governed by Force"
The core of Miller's argument rests on a realist view of international relations. He stated plainly that the global system operates on the principle of force. This perspective, he implied, underpins all state actions, whether openly acknowledged or not. By this logic, legal frameworks and treaties are secondary to the raw capacity of a nation to impose its will and secure its strategic objectives.
This philosophy served as a direct justification for Trump's Greenland gambit. Miller dismissed the widespread criticism and mockery that followed the 2019 revelation, suggesting it stemmed from a naive understanding of how geopolitics truly functions. He portrayed Trump's approach as a clear-eyed recognition of reality, where powerful nations constantly seek to enhance their position.
Strategic Motivations Behind the Greenland Idea
While Miller's language was blunt, the strategic thinking behind the Greenland proposal is rooted in long-standing geopolitical considerations. Analysts have pointed out that Greenland's location holds immense value.
- Arctic Dominance: As climate change opens new shipping routes and access to resources in the Arctic, control of Greenland would offer a massive strategic advantage.
- Military Positioning: The island is home to Thule Air Base, a critical U.S. military installation for missile warning and space surveillance. Full sovereignty would expand these capabilities.
- Resource Wealth: Greenland is believed to hold significant deposits of rare earth minerals and other natural resources, key to modern technology and economic security.
Miller's comments bring these unspoken strategic drivers to the forefront, framing them not as opportunistic but as the legitimate pursuits of a great power operating in a competitive world.
Reactions and Implications for US Foreign Policy
Miller's unabashed defense of the "right of force" doctrine is likely to draw sharp criticism from allies and foreign policy traditionalists. It challenges the post-World War II liberal international order that the U.S. helped build, which emphasizes rules, alliances, and soft power, even if often contradicted in practice.
This rhetoric aligns with the "America First" ideology that defined Trump's presidency and continues to influence a significant strand of Republican foreign policy thinking. It presents a vision where transactional gains and unilateral action take precedence over multilateral cooperation and diplomatic norms.
The revival of this discussion by a figure like Miller, who remains influential in conservative circles, signals that such ideas are not relics of the past Trump administration but active components of a potential future policy platform. As the United States navigates its rivalry with China and Russia in the Arctic and beyond, the debate between a rules-based order and a power-based approach, as voiced by Miller, is set to intensify.
