Amoral Arguments for Annexing Greenland
Catholic Reflections on an International Crisis
This past Saturday, thousands of Greenlanders—totaling about a quarter of the island’s population of 57,000—gathered in the capital Nuuk to protest the potential annexation of the Danish territory by the United States. A parallel protest was held in Copenhagen, Denmark’s capital, as a delegation of ten American lawmakers from the House and Senate met with Danish leaders to discuss the ongoing crisis. How did we reach the point where a NATO ally is protesting against the threat of military force by the US? And how might the Catholic theological and ethical tradition help us think about this unprecedented crisis?
President Donald Trump first looked into purchasing Greenland from Denmark during his first term but was told by Denmark’s prime minister that the island was not for sale. Trump revisited the issue in the weeks after his re-election in November 2024. Taking a more aggressive tone, he asserted that “ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” for reasons of national security, while also threatening to take control of the Panama Canal and to annex Canada as the “51st state.” In a March 4 address to the US Congress, Trump vowed that he would take Greenland “one way or another,” suggesting the possibility of using force if Denmark was unwilling to sell the island.
At the time, it was hard for Americans to know how seriously to take these threats being made by the president—was Trump really going to take the calamitous step of attacking an erstwhile NATO ally, destroying the alliance in the process, or was this an amoral gambit to gain concessions on using the island for strategic defense or for access to mineral resources through extortion? For their part, the Danes took the threats quite seriously. A December report by the Danish intelligence service openly describes the United States as a national security risk to the nation because it “no longer excludes the use of military force even against allies.”
Over the past month, it has become clear that the Danes were correct to take Trump at his word. In late December, Trump appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as a special envoy for the annexation of Greenland. Perhaps more importantly, the military strike leading to the overthrow and capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife on January 3 confirmed Trump’s willingness to act on his lawless threats to exercise US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Since then, European leaders have expressed their unity in resisting the US acquisition of Greenland, and a handful of NATO nations sent a small contingent of troops to Greenland for military exercises as a show of resolve.
Greenland is significant for the national security of the United States. For example, the melting of the polar ice caps is opening new shipping routes through the Arctic region that raise geostrategic concerns. Greenland is also home to deposits of so-called rare earth minerals, some of which are crucial for defense and communications technologies. Finally, Greenland’s Pituffik Space Base, used by the US Space Force, is crucial to the US’s efforts to defend satellites orbiting the earth. There is a potential risk that, without assertive action, China may gain control over the emerging Arctic sea lanes or over Greenland’s mineral deposits.
That being said, there is no reason why these security concerns could not be addressed through diplomacy, particularly since Denmark is a NATO ally. Even if Greenland were to gain its independence from Denmark, there is every reason to believe it would seek to maintain friendly relations with the United States, Canada, and Europe rather than falling under China’s sway. The use of force, however, would not only be unnecessary, but also a direct violation of international law as an act of aggression against another nation. Such a belligerent act would also destroy the NATO alliance, an action with far reaching national security implications.
In recent remarks, both President Trump and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller have laid bare the amoral reasoning behind the efforts to annex Greenland. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper two days after the military raid on Venezuela’s Maduro, Miller argued that “The United States should have Greenland as part of the United States.” He seemed to suggest, however, that, given the United States’ military might, it would be unnecessary for the US to actually use force to acquire the island. The threat of force would be sufficient for the US to take what it wants. He explained:
We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.
Miller reiterated this point in an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity this past Friday:
With respect to Denmark, Denmark is a tiny country with a tiny economy, and a tiny military. They cannot defend Greenland. They cannot control the territory of Greenland. Under every understanding of law that has existed about territorial control for 500 years, to control a territory you have to be able to defend a territory, improve territory, inhabit a territory. Denmark has failed on every single one of these tests.
Miller is here suggesting that Denmark is not up to the task of defending Greenland, given its strategic importance. Left unsaid is why the collective security ensured by NATO is not sufficient for defending the island. Perhaps more alarmingly, Miller implies that this relative weakness gives the US the right to acquire Greenland for its own security.
In a January 7 interview with The New York Times touching on the military strike in Venezuela, the dispute over Greenland, and other matters of foreign affairs, President Trump was asked what limits he recognized on his global power, and he responded: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
It’s ironic that Miller—who is the architect of the Trump administration’s mass deportation policies—has defended Trumpism as a defense of the West and its culture against non-Western interlopers, and yet his “might makes right” philosophy flies in the face of nearly the entire Western political tradition. Socrates’s refutation of the Sophist Thrasymachus’s argument that “justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger” in Plato’s Republic is the foundation of Western political thought. Similarly, St. Augustine’s argument that the libido dominandi, the lust for domination and power, must be overcome by love, is central to Western Christian political thinking. Although these principles have sometimes been more honored in the breach than the observance, the rule of the strong over the weak, without constraint of law or morality, has always been recognized as tyranny.
.jpg){kind=link}
Catholics have responded to this paradox in conflicting ways. Matthew Walsh, a conservative podcaster and writer, has argued in favor of Trump and Miller’s “America First” approach, argued on social media that international law is not binding because there is no global political authority to enforce it. Absent such an authority, nations should act in their self-interest, even dominating other nations, a stance to which Walsh adds a Catholic spin by pointing to Spanish imperialism during the colonial era.
Edward Feser—a conservative Thomist philosopher perhaps best known for his resistance to recent magisterial teaching on the death penalty and immigration—responded to Walsh by highlighting the role of Catholic scholastics in the emergence of international law. Writing for First Things, Feser points out that even in the case of Spanish colonialism, the Spanish scholastic theologians of the sixteenth century believed that the colonial enterprise was governed by the law of nations, grounded in the natural law, and criticized what they viewed as the unethical excesses of the colonists. Feser cites the Spanish Dominican Francisco de Vitoria: “[E]nlargement of empire cannot be a cause of just war. This proposition is too well known to require further proof.” Feser has also provided a detailed argument that the potential annexation of Greenland (whether by force or by extortion through the threat of force) would violate the principles of the just-war doctrine.
One might look to more recent Catholic magisterial teaching for a more direct response to Miller and Trump’s comments. Pope John XXIII opens his 1963 encyclical Pacem in Terris with the teaching that God has created a “marvelous order” in the universe, encompassing both “the forces of nature” and humankind (##1-2). He goes on to say, “Many people think that the laws which govern man's relations with the State are the same as those which regulate the blind, elemental forces of the universe” (#6). And yet, he adds, “[I]t is not so” (#6). Human beings are governed by a moral law inscribed in our hearts, both in our personal dealings and in political society. This confusion, however, leads to the erroneous belief that “the relationships that bind men together [can] only be governed by force” (#4). Contra Miller and Trump, then, transcending any “iron laws” of power and force is the moral order established by God and that stands in judgment of even the most powerful political leader.
Much later in the encyclical, Pope John insists that, as a result of the moral order governing human affairs, the relations between states “must be regulated not by armed force, but in accordance with the principles of right reason: the principles, that is, of truth, justice and vigorous and sincere co-operation” (#114). John calls on nations to strive toward what he calls the “universal common good,” the good of the entire human family, both as a moral imperative but also out of self-interest:
[I]t is clear that no State can fittingly pursue its own interests in isolation from the rest, nor, under such circumstances, can it develop itself as it should. The prosperity and progress of any State is in part consequence, and in part cause, of the prosperity and progress of all other States. (#131)
Nations work toward this universal common good through diplomacy, the drafting of treaties, and the building up of international law (#133). International law, however, is simply the fleshing out of the natural law as it governs the relations among nations, the law of nations. Therefore, in response to Walsh’s argument against international law, the international law’s authority ultimately comes from God, and more directly comes from the consent and cooperation of the states who ratify it. The question of international law’s enforcement is nevertheless an important one. Often international law is enforceable only to the extent that nations are willing to impose consequences on a violator of the law.
For this reason, Pope John called for the establishment of a worldwide political authority, established through the consent of the nations and respecting their due autonomy, that could serve the universal common good (##136-41). Likewise, more than forty years later in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI called for the strengthening of international institutions “so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth” (#67).
As I noted at the time, this past July, Pope Leo XIV lamented the declining respect for international law in the world. Although referring specifically to the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, Leo’s remarks could equally apply to more recent US actions and threats in the Western Hemisphere:
It is truly distressing to see the principle of “might makes right” prevailing in so many situations today, all for the sake of legitimizing the pursuit of self-interest. It is troubling to see that the force of international law and humanitarian law seems no longer to be binding, replaced by the alleged right to coerce others. This is unworthy of our humanity, shameful for all mankind and for the leaders of nations. After centuries of history, how can anyone believe that acts of war bring about peace and not backfire on those who commit them? How can we think that we are laying the foundations of the future apart from cooperation and a global vision inspired by the common good?
In his more recent address to the Vatican diplomatic corps, Pope Leo returned to the same theme:
In our time, the weakness of multilateralism is a particular cause for concern at the international level. A diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus among all parties is being replaced by a diplomacy based on force, by either individuals or groups of allies. War is back in vogue and a zeal for war is spreading. The principle established after the Second World War, which prohibited nations from using force to violate the borders of others, has been completely undermined. Peace is no longer sought as a gift and a desirable good in itself, or in the pursuit of “the establishment of the ordered universe willed by God, with a more perfect form of justice among men and women” (Pope Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, #76). Instead, peace is sought through weapons as a condition for asserting one’s own dominion. This gravely threatens the rule of law, which is the foundation of all peaceful civil coexistence.
In that same address, he also returns to the idea that attempts to bring about peace through war “backfire.” Appealing to St. Augustine’s argument that the libido dominandi, the lust for domination, is pursued for the sake of peace of a sort, a peace that suits one’s own interests, he adds, “It was precisely this attitude that led humanity into the tragedy of the Second World War.” In the same way, in Pacem in Terris, Pope John XXIII sees the threat of nuclear annihilation as the price of a peace sought through arms, what Miller describes as “the iron laws of the world.”
In our own day, the NATO alliance is at risk, and perhaps with it what remains of the liberal international order. One also ought to consider that power is fleeting, and in a world where “might makes right,” those who have power today may face unforeseen consequences once power slips away.
Pope Leo has repeatedly insisted that Christians’ action in the world should be both unarmed and disarming. We should avoid the “realism” that sees violence as necessary and instead focus on building mutual trust and dialogue. Let us hope that our political leaders heed this call and turn away from war and threats of war.
Of Interest…
Last month I pointed readers to Mike Lewis’s important analysis of the views of Fr. Chad Ripperger, an influential traditionalist Catholic media figure, on questions of gender roles in marriage. I contrasted Ripperger’s views with those found in the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith’s recent statement on the beauty of monogamy, Una Caro, which calls for mutual respect between spouses and regard for one another’s autonomy within marriage and which rejects the notion that Catholic teaching requires adherence to traditional gender roles. Lewis has followed up with more details on Ripperger’s views on the role of wives in marriage, explaining that these views do not sufficiently respect the dignity of wives and could be used to justify spousal abuse. Lewis’s work helps illustrate the distance between traditionalists and the Church’s Tradition! Also note that Una Caro, linked above, is finally available in an English translation!
Coming Soon…
I apologize for the lengthy delay in publishing anything here at Window Light. I had advised readers that I would be traveling for the holidays and attending the annual Society of Christian Ethics convention, but my travels extended longer than I had first thought, and I didn’t have the time for writing that I thought I would. And a lot happened during those two weeks, including the military strike in Venezuela and the capture of Nicolás Maduro, the threats to annex Greenland covered here, and the ongoing immigration enforcement efforts in Minnesota, including the shooting death of Renee Good by an ICE officer. Although this is not primarily a current events newsletter, I do think it is important to reflect on current events from a theological lens, and so I do hope to return to at least some of these recent events soon.
Last we heard, the final reports of the Study Groups established in conjunction with the recent Synod on Synodality were due to be finished by December 31. So far, they have not yet been published, but when they do appear, I will read through them and offer a summary with commentary.
.