How Washington claim over Greenland weakens its position over Taiwan
On May 19, 2025, when the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, met with his Danish counterpart Lars Lokke Rasmussen in Beijing, and announced, that People’s Republic of China ‘’fully respects Denmark’s sovereignty on the Greenland issue and hopes that Denmark will continue to support China’s legitimate position on issues related to its own sovereignty and territorial integrity,’’ he caught Washington off-guard: If the United States can go unilaterally after acquiring foreign territory (Greenland issue) why can Beijing be deterred when it comes to the reunification of Taiwan with Mainland China?
By drawing an analogy and zooming into the behavior of United States, Wang Yi not only managed to reframed Greenland issue in international relations as a litmus test of sovereignty, but he also challenged the United States position over Taiwan; an analogy that carries ramifications for time to come.
By exposing the contradiction in United States rhetoric and action, Beijing not only exposed the duplicity of Washington actions, but also framed Greenland issue in liberal language, affirming small-state authority over its territory, while avoiding an open confrontation with the United States.
Zooming into the ‘’Principle’’
This framing was focused and timely. By linking the issues of Greenland and Taiwan- Beijing managed to expose the faulty layers in the United States doctrine of territorial expansion. From Greenland to Taipei, by reframing the issue of sovereignties, the People’s Republic of China successfully undermined the logic of the United States position over sovereignty, thus placing Beijing voice as one defending the core interests of international order, without firing a shot.
Exposing this fault line in United States territorial doctrine, that too in front of a person, whose country, which is under considerable strain, Beijing played the role of a principled and responsible great-power, while simultaneously managing, to reject the revisionist perception of China in the West, challenging the binary actions of United States: selective innovation of sovereignty. And if this is true, why should Beijing be denied the same toolkit?
Choosing the one: Between the alliance and Principle
While zooming into the global political arena, where Washington uses the tongue of saint, and operate with imperial logic, this Greenland-Taipei analogy exposes Europe as well, where the U.S. imperial dictates holds sway contrary to the liberal norms, it champions.
Like other strategic spaces around the world, this arctic country holds immense strategic importance, China’s position is one of economic and infrastructural- a position Greenland’s political leadership see as vital and necessary for diversification of its interests. Owing to this same interest, Greenland opened its representative office in People’s Republic of China, back in 2021. Thus for Greenland, Chinese investments hold potential in reducing its dependence on one single country.
Whilst the real objectives extend beyond the control over any territory, the true contest seems to be of normative nature: is sovereignty prisoner to geopolitical interests or is it a fixed norm constituting liberal international order?
Thus, Washington’s next move over Greenland issue would clarify its intentions, and its approach would tell a lot about the fate of Taiwan. By embracing the path of territorial ambitions, it would severely weakens its position over Taiwan and would send a clear message with strategic implications: sovereignty is to be invoked only, when its suits you. If the U.S. is determined to create its influence from the ports of Panama Canal to the icy sheets of Greenland, it undermines Washington’s logic of deterring Beijing’s claim with respect to Taipei and South China Sea.
The selective invocation of Sovereignty and its implications
For the West, including the United States, the implications for the selective invocation of sovereignty, when its suits their interest holds significant repercussions, with some even simply beyond Western binary strategic thinking.
Firstly, by exposing the fault lines in Washington territorial spree, it has exposed the West in its selective invocation of sovereignty, peeling the layers of its rigid and flexible approaches to territorial claims- be that Ukraine, in the first case or Taiwan and South China Sea in the latter.
Secondly, it forces the NATO countries, to uphold the alliance unity and give Mr. Trump ‘’trespassing allowed’’ card or assert sovereignty and attract the wrath of American power. The Europeans therefore, are facing a crucial credibility test here.
Finally, Beijing isn’t criticizing nor her language seems to champions these same values, it is simply recasting herself as an equivalent legitimate power: the rules and norms should be same for every great power.
Conclusion
Be targeting the underlying logic, Beijing has greatly undermined Washington’s position and its immunity to norms and values, when its suits U.S. national interests. In a world, open to the practice of double standards, Washington’s tactics are increasingly becoming open to challenge.
The boundary has been set for the United States. Either produce consistency in its rhetoric and actions, or accepts its flexibility for others. Beijing, therefore, has redrawn the terms and conditions: by weaponizing the analogy, with implications far beyond the icy sheets of Greenland.
