inuit

The Sovereign Sea, Part 4: A Coalition of the Whaling

Barry Scott Zellen, PhD Culture, History, Law, Liberty, Politics , , , ,

12. Why America Should Embrace Marine Mammal Diplomacy

The United States can help secure its strategic future in the Arctic by lifting its import bans on marine mammal products like seal pelts and whale meat to support the Arctic’s traditional economies. This could be particularly advantageous to America’s ambitious but troubled diplomatic engagement with Greenland, and to its long but recently strained strategic partnership with Canada. 

As climate change thins the polar ice caps, Greenland has transformed from a remote frozen landmass into the geopolitical center of the North Atlantic. The island commands the vital sea lanes of the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) Gap, hosts critical American aerospace defense infrastructure at Pituffik Space Base, and sits atop some of the world’s largest untapped reserves of rare earth minerals. Russia continues to militarily harden and refurbish its northern bases, and China continues to eye the region through its “Polar Silk Road” initiative. In this contested environment, Washington can no longer treat Greenland as a passive strategic outpost.

But true and enduring security in the Arctic requires a deep partnership with the people who live there. To win the long-term trust of Greenlanders, the United States must move beyond military agreements and offer meaningful economic partnership. The most effective way to do this is to open the U.S. market to Greenland’s traditional, sustainable marine products: seal pelts and whale meat.

13. The Cultural and Economic Reality of Arctic North America

For centuries, the Inuit have relied on the sea for survival. Sealing and whaling were not, strictly speaking, commercial endeavors; they were the foundation of Inuit culture, food security, and local economies. In remote settlements along the vast Arctic coast, alternative economic opportunities were practically nonexistent. Hunting marine mammals provided vital protein and generated local income through the sale of skins and meat.

In Greenland, the management of these resources is highly regulated, scientifically monitored, and strictly sustainable. The government sets conservative quotas based on rigorous environmental assessments to ensure that wildlife populations remain stable and healthy.

Greenlandic hunting methods are deeply rooted in Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), prioritizing respect for the animal and minimizing waste. The same is true across Baffin Bay in the Canadian Arctic.

Despite this sustainable model, the Inuit traditional economy continues to face severe hardship due to sweeping Western trade restrictions.

14. The Damage of Well-Intentioned Western Bans

For decades, well-meaning but misguided Western environmental campaigns have devastated Arctic communities. The U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) imposes a blanket ban on the import of all marine mammal products into the United States. Similarly, the European Union’s bans on seal products have crippled the global market for pelts.

These policies were designed to target large-scale, industrial commercial exploitation. Instead, they caught Indigenous subsistence hunters in the crossfire. By destroying the export market for seal skins, Western nations inadvertently hollowed out the economies of small Arctic villages. This created widespread economic distress and a deep sense of cultural alienation among Inuit, who felt judged and penalized by distant Western capitals.

When Washington approached Nuuk strictly to talk about military radar installations while maintaining laws that effectively criminalize Greenland’s traditional way of life, it created an atmosphere of hypocrisy. This economic and cultural friction left a vulnerability that foreign adversaries are eager to exploit.

Canada’s isolated Arctic communities experienced the very same traumatic and enduring dislocations from the seal ban, and would equally benefit from America’s restoration of markets for marine mammal products.

15. The Strategic Threat of Adversarial Soft Power

But as the West kept its marine mammal markets closed, America’s competitors kept looking for ways to gain influence in Nuuk. I have long urged America to step up its game in marine mammal diplomacy—the idea being that non -Western actors could exploit Western environmental rigidity to build new alliances with Arctic peoples.

A few years back, China pro-actively and with foresight attempted to finance airport expansions, mining projects, and research stations across Greenland. Beijing presented itself as an economic partner willing to invest without lecturing Greenlanders on their cultural traditions. If the United States and its European allies continue to isolate Greenland economically, Nuuk may eventually find such promises of non-Western investment too lucrative to turn down. Its Arctic Strategy takes a balanced approach to the East-West balance, seeing opportunities from both.

Securing Pituffik Space Base, and keeping Chinese state-owned enterprises away from critical infrastructure, will require more than diplomatic pressure. The U.S. must prove that alignment with the West delivers tangible, everyday economic benefits to ordinary Arctic citizens.

16. A Framework for a Targeted U.S. Market

Opening the United States to seal and whale imports does not require abandoning America’s core commitment to marine conservation. Instead, Washington can create a strictly regulated, bilateral trade framework tailored specifically to Greenland and Canada.

Amending the MMPA: Congress can introduce a specific, narrow exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act for certified, sustainably harvested products originating from Greenland and Canada.

A Certified Origin System: The U.S., Greenland and Canada can co-create a strict certification system. Every seal pelt or unit of meat exported to the U.S. would carry verification proving it was harvested under Greenland’s official, science-based quotas by licensed hunters and Canada’s collaborative co-management systems wedding TEK and western science.

Strict Anti-Commercialization Guards: The exemption would apply exclusively to Greenland’s regulated, small-scale hunters and Canada’s indigenous subsistence hunters. This will prevent the revival of unregulated, large-scale industrial sealing or whaling by other nations.

By taking these steps, the U.S. can create a highly controlled niche market that honors conservation while providing a massive boost to Greenland’s and Canada’s remote coastal communities.

17. Overcoming the Domestic Political Hurdle

The primary obstacle to this strategy is political friction within the United States. Domestic environmental lobbying groups will likely oppose any modification to marine mammal protections, fearing a slippery slope.

The White House and Congress must counter this pushback with a clear, education-focused narrative. They must explain that supporting Greenland’s and Canada’s sustainable seal and whale hunts is an act of environmental and social justice that aligns with modern indigenous rights frameworks, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Championing Arctic North America’s traditional hunters will allow Washington to correct decades of economic harm caused by broad-brush Western policies.

18. A Coalition of the Whaling

Furthermore, our national security leaders can frame this policy change as a geopolitical necessity. The long-term strategic cost of losing influence in the Arctic far outweighs the political discomfort of updating domestic conservation laws.

Moreover, by taking the lead on this vital economic front, the United States can forge a powerful new coalition with its traditional maritime (and fellow whaling) allies—Norway, Iceland, and Japan. These nations share a deep-seated cultural understanding of sustainable marine mammal harvesting and possess the existing infrastructure, processing capabilities, and consumer markets necessary to sustain a global trade network. 

19. Life Imitating Art

In what appears to be a coincidental case of life-imitating-art, my advocacy for pro-active American marine mammal diplomacy earlier this summer (appearing in an earlier version of this post here on August 2) has found powerful advocates at the highest levels of Greenland Energy, who came out publicly in late August for what they call “Sealskin diplomacy.” This took form in a proposal to President Trump to lift the unpopular ban on sealskin imports in a bid to improve relations with Greenland while building local support for its oil drilling program.

As reported in the Financial Times, Greenland Energy’s chair, Larry Swets Jr., oversaw development of a 36-page white paper calling upon Washington to modify the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to permit the sale of sealskins from animals already harvested for food by local Inuit hunters. His sealskin diplomacy initiative followed this summer’s dispute with Nuuk after the company prepositioned unauthorized drilling equipment at the Jameson Land basin without first attaining the necessary permits, earning the Greenland government’s rebuke:

“The plan is to generate income for remote communities and defuse local anger over Trump’s repeated declarations that the US wants to take control of the autonomous Danish territory. Greenland Energy intends to spend $60mn on initial drilling alongside UK mining company 80 Mile to exploit what it claims is ‘a trillion dollars’ of oil lying beneath Greenland. ‘The US has a rare opportunity to strengthen its relationship with Greenland without spending taxpayer money, without touching Greenland’s political status, without increasing the number of seals taken, and without asking Greenland to do anything at all,’ said the ‘white paper’ by Swets that has been produced for Trump …

‘If seals are harvested for food, why should Greenlanders be prevented from selling the skins to Americans? I wouldn’t tell my brothers, nephews and friends they must stop using deer hides or Americans they can’t use cattle leather,’ Swets told the FT. Greenland Energy’s pragmatic approach to indigenous rights and prosperity comes after the company suspended its oil exploration when the island’s authorities said it had no right to drill. Undeterred, Swets is now lobbying Trump to lift the sealskin ban as a way to generate millions of dollars for Greenland’s 55,000 inhabitants.”

I welcome (and salute) Greenland Energy’s proposal, though believe America should not limit its effort to lifting the unpopular seal ban, which has proven devastating not only to Greenlanders, but to Inuit across the circumpolar Arctic, but to simultaneously advance circumpolar trade in whale products as well, creating a more diversified marine mammal market with a wider “coalition of the whaling,” as I described it.

Whaling need not only be part of America’s glorious past but part of our present and future glory as well, and a bridge to a unified circumpolar world, whose unity will be strengthened by our mutual embrace of both sealing and whaling, and the strength, determination and independence they represent. Together, under American leadership, this “coalition of the whaling” can dismantle the restrictive trade barriers of the past, outmaneuver our authoritarian rivals, and build an unshakeable, prosperous future that permanently secures the hearts, minds, and northern borders of Greenland.

20. Winning Hearts, Minds, and Markets

Opening American doors to Greenland’s traditional exports would be a massive diplomatic victory. It would send an undeniable signal to Nuuk and Ottawa that the United States respects the sovereignty, culture, and economic self-determination of its Arctic North American allies.

The economic impact on the U.S. market might be small, but the positive impact on Greenland’s and Canada’s Arctic communities would be transformative. It would revitalize local economies, restore dignity to traditional hunters, and build immense goodwill toward the United States and its whaling partners.

True security in the Arctic cannot be built on military contracts alone. It requires genuine partnership, mutual respect, and shared prosperity. By opening our markets to marine mammal products like seal and whale, the United States can outmaneuver its global rivals, secure its northern flank, and win the enduring loyalty of the people of Greenland and the Canadian Arctic. 

References

  • Freeman, M. M. R., Wein, E. E., & Keith, D. E. (1992). Recovering Rights: Bowhead Whales and Inuvialuit Subsistence in the Western Canadian Arctic. University of Alberta Press, Occasional Publications Series, Issue 2 of Studies in Whaling.
  • Zellen, B. S. (2008). Breaking the Ice: From Land Claims to Tribal Sovereignty in the Arctic. Lexington Books.
  • Zellen, B. S. (2013). State of Recovery: The Quest to Restore American Security after 9/11. Bloomsbury Academic.
  • Zellen, B. S. (2020). Tribe-State Collaboration and the Future of Arctic Cooperation: Moderating Inter-State Competition through Collaborative Multilevel Governance. The Polar Journal (Taylor & Francis) (September 1).
  • Zellen, B. S. (2022). Co-management as a Foundation of Arctic Exceptionalism: Strengthening the Bonds between the Indigenous and Westphalian Worlds, The Yearbook of Polar Law XIII (Brill), 65–92.
  • Zellen, B. S. (2024). Arctic Exceptionalism: Cooperation in a Contested World. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
  • Zellen, B. S. (2025). Co-management, Knowledge Co-production, and the Re-empowerment of Arctic Indigenous Peoples. The Arctic Institute.
  • Zellen, B. S. (2026). A Proposed Compact of Free Association (COFA) Between the United States of America and Greenland. Academia.edu Working Draft.

Between “Arctic Doom” and “Arctic Boom,” Part 1: Navigating a Path to a Secure, Prosperous and Free Arctic

Barry Scott Zellen, PhD Books, Current Events, Liberty, Philosophy, Politics , , , ,

For four decades, my research into the geopolitical and geophysical transformation of the circumpolar north has challenged the persistent misconception of an inevitable, apocalyptic impending “Arctic doom.” In my books and articles examining the region’s security, governance, and environmental transformation—well illustrated in my third book, Arctic Doom, Arctic Boom: The Geopolitics of Climate Change in the Arctic (2009)—I have argued that the global imagination routinely misreads the polar world.

To the southern world, the Arctic has too-frequently been cast as being locked in a static, perpetually passive, frozen inertial state. It is viewed either through a state-centric realist lens as an open chessboard for renewed great-power competition, or by mainstream climate idealists and environmental activists as a tragic casualty of climate change where indigenous cultures are destined to dissolve alongside the polar pack ice.

But when we look closely at the complex structural and climatological realities on the ground (and thawing polar ice), a profoundly different narrative emerges. What climate pessimists diagnose as an impending apocalypse, I have conceptualized as a more ambiguous dialectic that oscillates between the poles of “Arctic doom” and “Arctic boom.” This presents the potential for both risk and opportunity, fear and hope, and recognizes the agency for Inuit to mitigate the former while leveraging the latter. It is an unfolding era of dynamic political, legal, and institutional development that has empowered Arctic indigenous peoples to assert their own agency.

As I explored in my 2020 chapter contribution to the Palgrave Handbook of Arctic Policy and Politics (“State Expansion and Indigenous Response in the Arctic: A Globally Integrated Northern Borderland Emerges from the Historical Synthesis of Northern Frontier and Northern Homeland”) the retreat of the ice is breaking the handcuffs of a long Ice Age. For millennia, extreme cold has acted as a physical barrier, freezing the Arctic in a state of extreme geographical isolation, and since the colonial era, has increasingly rendered its inhabitants structurally dependent on distant southern metropoles.

To understand how the Inuit can navigate the current transition under way, we must expand the traditional boundaries of International Relations (IR) theory. Scholars have long relied on Kenneth Waltz’s classic “Three Images” of world politics (the individual, the state, and the anarchic international system). Having studied under Waltz, I posited in On Thin Ice: The Inuit, the State, and the Challenge of Arctic Sovereignty (2009), which came to press 50 years after his paradigmatic dissertation came to press as the IR theory classic Man, the State and War, that these categories possess a fundamental blind spot regarding northern realities.

To explain the Arctic, we must look through the lens of what I call the Fourth Image: the tribal or indigenous level of analysis. The Inuit operate as an organic polity—a non-state, transnational nation whose governance structures grow naturally out of ancestral occupancy, ecological co-management, and modern land claims. They do not wait for sovereign states to grant them agency. Instead, they actively project Fourth Image power across four distinct, intersecting tiers of governance to achieve what they define as climate justice.

Theoretical Framework: The Fourth Image and the Organic Polity

The primary flaw of traditional IR theory is its presumed state-centric monopoly. When standard analysts look at the Arctic through the third image, they map an open chessboard where sovereign states vie for maritime shipping routes and subsea energy reserves. When they look through the second image, they focus on the domestic legislative agendas of Ottawa, Washington, Copenhagen, or Moscow. My research—culminating most recently in Arctic Exceptionalism: Cooperation in a Contested World (2024)—challenges this state-centric bias by identifying the Fourth Image as a permanent, stabilizing feature of northern geopolitics.

The Nature of the Organic Polity

Unlike the modern nation-state, which relies on artificial borders superimposed on the landscape by colonial powers, the Inuit polity is organic. Its foundations are rooted in continuous occupancy, ancestral use, and a sophisticated body of traditional ecological knowledge (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit). As I noted in my 2021 Arctic Yearbook analysis, “Arctic Indigenous peoples and the state—Toward a universal convergence,” this polity is not a pre-modern relic. Over the last half-century, the Inuit have systematically codified their organic authority into modern legal treaties, co-management boards, native-owned corporations, and self-governing territories. As I first traced in Breaking the Ice: From Land Claims to Tribal Sovereignty in the Arctic (2008), they have forged a pragmatic synthesis between the tribe and the state, transforming themselves from historical subjects into active co-sovereigns of the northern hemisphere.

The Dynamics of the “Arctic Spring”

This theoretical outlook informs how the Inuit approach environmental change. Mainstream Western environmentalism frames climate change as a pure tragedy. The Inuit perspective, however, operates on a deeper historical scale. They have survived multiple major climatological shifts over tens of thousands of years as ice ages have come and gone. While they recognize the severe structural risks introduced by a warming climate—such as unstable sea ice and thawing permafrost—they also recognize that the “Arctic Spring” dissolves their physical isolation. As I wrote in Arctic Doom, Arctic Boom (2009), today’s transformative polar thaw is the beginning of the final chapter of the Earth’s previous ice age, which held both the geophysical Arctic and its inhabitants prisoner to its forbidding climate.

The polar thaw brings the global economy directly to their doorstep, transforming the Arctic from a remote cul-de-sac into a central maritime corridor. From the Inuit standpoint, climate justice is not defined by freezing the Arctic in a permanent, romanticized past. It means possessing the political, legal, and economic architecture to govern this newly accessible frontier, illustrated by the 2024 release of Greenland’s very first Arctic strategy, “Greenland in the World: Nothing: Nothing About Us Without Us,” which presents a pragmatic, confident and unapologetically optimistic outlook on the changing Arctic—and the new opportunities it presents for Inuit agency and autonomy.

The Historical Architecture of Inuit Empowerment

The modern capacity of the Inuit to navigate climate change is the product of decades of structural resistance and sophisticated legal mobilization. Throughout the mid-to-late 20th century, as Cold War militarization and resource exploration accelerated, the Inuit established a legal fortress to protect their way of life.

The Alaskan Breakthrough (1971)

The modern era of Fourth Image empowerment in the Arctic began in Alaska. As I have noted in my historical analyses across Breaking the Ice (2008) and On Thin Ice (2009), the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968 forced an unprecedented confrontation (and ultimately, convergence) between the United States government, multinational corporations, and Alaska Native tribes.

The resulting Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 eschewed the traditional, paternalistic reservation system. Instead, it pioneered a corporate model, establishing twelve regional and over two hundred local village corporations, transferring 44 million acres of land and nearly one billion dollars directly to Indigenous ownership. Through corporate structures like the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), the Inuit turned capital into an instrument of self-determination, gaining the financial independence necessary to fund local infrastructure and lobby federal authorities.

The Canadian Evolution: From Co-management to Collaborative Sovereignty

While ANCSA focused heavily on land title and corporate equity, it initially lacked explicit provisions for political self-government and structured resource co-management. Canada’s northern policy addressed these structural omissions by introducing a collaborative governance paradigm. The breakthrough came with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) of 1975. As the first modern land claim treaty in Canada, the JBNQA served as a vital laboratory for institutionalizing co-management and regional municipal self-government for the Inuit of Nunavik and the Cree of James Bay. It fundamentally paired environmental protection with indigenous veto power over massive industrial developments.

Building directly upon the structural precedents of the JBNQA, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement (IFA) of 1984 consolidated this model in the Northwest Territories. The IFA refined the early co-management designs of the 1970s by implementing formal, joint-statutory boards composed of equal numbers of Inuvialuit and government representatives. As I argued in The Polar Journal, this specific framework pioneered tribe-state collaboration to moderate great power friction (2020). These bodies hold binding regulatory authority over wildlife, environmental impacts, and industrial licensing—securing the interplay of traditional knowledge and Western science as a constitutional guarantee.

A Coalition of the Whaling: Why America Should Embrace Marine Mammal Diplomacy for the Arctic

Barry Scott Zellen, PhD Culture, Liberty, Politics , , , ,

The United States can help secure its strategic future in the Arctic by lifting its import bans on marine mammal products like seal pelts and whale meat to support the Arctic’s traditional economies. This could be particularly advantageous to America’s ambitious but troubled diplomatic engagement with Greenland, and to its long but recently strained strategic partnership with Canada. 

As climate change thins the polar ice caps, Greenland has transformed from a remote frozen landmass into the geopolitical center of the North Atlantic. The island commands the vital sea lanes of the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) Gap, hosts critical American aerospace defense infrastructure at Pituffik Space Base, and sits atop some of the world’s largest untapped reserves of rare earth minerals. Russia continues to militarily harden and refurbish its northern bases, and China continues to eye the region through its “Polar Silk Road” initiative. In this contested environment, Washington can no longer treat Greenland as a passive strategic outpost.

But true and enduring security in the Arctic requires a deep partnership with the people who live there. To win the long-term trust of Greenlanders, the United States must move beyond military agreements and offer meaningful economic partnership. The most effective way to do this is to open the U.S. market to Greenland’s traditional, sustainable marine products: seal pelts and whale meat.

The Cultural and Economic Reality of Arctic North America

For centuries, the Inuit have relied on the sea for survival. Sealing and whaling were not, strictly speaking, commercial endeavors; they were the foundation of Inuit culture, food security, and local economies. In remote settlements along the vast Arctic coast, alternative economic opportunities were practically nonexistent. Hunting marine mammals provided vital protein and generated local income through the sale of skins and meat.

In Greenland, the management of these resources is highly regulated, scientifically monitored, and strictly sustainable. The government sets conservative quotas based on rigorous environmental assessments to ensure that wildlife populations remain stable and healthy.

Greenlandic hunting methods are deeply rooted in Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK), prioritizing respect for the animal and minimizing waste. The same is true across Baffin Bay in the Canadian Arctic.

Despite this sustainable model, the Inuit traditional economy continues to face severe hardship due to sweeping Western trade restrictions.

The Damage of Well-Intentioned Western Bans

For decades, well-meaning but misguided Western environmental campaigns have devastated Arctic communities. The U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) imposes a blanket ban on the import of all marine mammal products into the United States. Similarly, the European Union’s bans on seal products have crippled the global market for pelts.

These policies were designed to target large-scale, industrial commercial exploitation. Instead, they caught Indigenous subsistence hunters in the crossfire. By destroying the export market for seal skins, Western nations inadvertently hollowed out the economies of small Arctic villages. This created widespread economic distress and a deep sense of cultural alienation among Inuit, who felt judged and penalized by distant Western capitals.

When Washington approached Nuuk strictly to talk about military radar installations while maintaining laws that effectively criminalize Greenland’s traditional way of life, it created an atmosphere of hypocrisy. This economic and cultural friction left a vulnerability that foreign adversaries are eager to exploit.

Canada’s isolated Arctic communities experienced the very same traumatic and enduring dislocations from the seal ban, and would equally benefit from America’s restoration of markets for marine mammal products.

The Strategic Threat of Adversarial Soft Power

But as the West kept its marine mammal markets closed, America’s competitors kept looking for ways to gain influence in Nuuk. I have long urged America to step up its game in marine mammal diplomacy—the idea being that non -Western actors could exploit Western environmental rigidity to build new alliances with Arctic peoples.

A few years back, China pro-actively and with foresight attempted to finance airport expansions, mining projects, and research stations across Greenland. Beijing presented itself as an economic partner willing to invest without lecturing Greenlanders on their cultural traditions. If the United States and its European allies continue to isolate Greenland economically, Nuuk may eventually find such promises of non-Western investment too lucrative to turn down. Its Arctic Strategy takes a balanced approach to the East-West balance, seeing opportunities from both.

Securing Pituffik Space Base, and keeping Chinese state-owned enterprises away from critical infrastructure, will require more than diplomatic pressure. The U.S. must prove that alignment with the West delivers tangible, everyday economic benefits to ordinary Arctic citizens.

A Framework for a Targeted U.S. Market

Opening the United States to seal and whale imports does not require abandoning America’s core commitment to marine conservation. Instead, Washington can create a strictly regulated, bilateral trade framework tailored specifically to Greenland and Canada.

Amending the MMPA: Congress can introduce a specific, narrow exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act for certified, sustainably harvested products originating from Greenland and Canada.

A Certified Origin System: The U.S., Greenland and Canada can co-create a strict certification system. Every seal pelt or unit of meat exported to the U.S. would carry verification proving it was harvested under Greenland’s official, science-based quotas by licensed hunters and Canada’s collaborative co-management systems wedding TEK and western science.

Strict Anti-Commercialization Guards: The exemption would apply exclusively to Greenland’s regulated, small-scale hunters and Canada’s indigenous subsistence hunters. This will prevent the revival of unregulated, large-scale industrial sealing or whaling by other nations.

By taking these steps, the U.S. can create a highly controlled niche market that honors conservation while providing a massive boost to Greenland’s and Canada’s remote coastal communities.

Overcoming the Domestic Political Hurdle

The primary obstacle to this strategy is political friction within the United States. Domestic environmental lobbying groups will likely oppose any modification to marine mammal protections, fearing a slippery slope.

The White House and Congress must counter this pushback with a clear, education-focused narrative. They must explain that supporting Greenland’s and Canada’s sustainable seal and whale hunts is an act of environmental and social justice that aligns with modern indigenous rights frameworks, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Championing Arctic North America’s traditional hunters will allow Washington to correct decades of economic harm caused by broad-brush Western policies.

A Coalition of the Whaling

Furthermore, our national security leaders can frame this policy change as a geopolitical necessity. The long-term strategic cost of losing influence in the Arctic far outweighs the political discomfort of updating domestic conservation laws.

Moreover, by taking the lead on this vital economic front, the United States can forge a powerful new coalition with its traditional maritime (and fellow whaling) allies—Norway, Iceland, and Japan. These nations share a deep-seated cultural understanding of sustainable marine mammal harvesting and possess the existing infrastructure, processing capabilities, and consumer markets necessary to sustain a global trade network. 

Together, under American leadership, this “coalition of the whaling” can dismantle the restrictive trade barriers of the past, outmaneuver our authoritarian rivals, and build an unshakeable, prosperous future that permanently secures the hearts, minds, and northern borders of Greenland.

Winning Hearts, Minds, and Markets

Opening American doors to Greenland’s traditional exports would be a massive diplomatic victory. It would send an undeniable signal to Nuuk and Ottawa that the United States respects the sovereignty, culture, and economic self-determination of its Arctic North American allies.

The economic impact on the U.S. market might be small, but the positive impact on Greenland’s and Canada’s Arctic communities would be transformative. It would revitalize local economies, restore dignity to traditional hunters, and build immense goodwill toward the United States and its whaling partners.

True security in the Arctic cannot be built on military contracts alone. It requires genuine partnership, mutual respect, and shared prosperity. By opening our markets to marine mammal products like seal and whale, the United States can outmaneuver its global rivals, secure its northern flank, and win the enduring loyalty of the people of Greenland and the Canadian Arctic. 

After Greenland’s Liberation: Inuit Sovereign Expansion

Barry Scott Zellen, PhD Current Events, History, Liberty, Politics , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Greenland and Nunavut Could Join Forces Under a U.S. Shield

June 21 — just two weeks away — marks not only the summer solstice, but in Canada it’s also National Indigenous Peoples Day, a day that celebrates the resilience of the Arctic’s original inhabitants. Yet, celebration without sovereignty seems in many ways premature and incomplete.  True self-determination for Inuit still requires a profound political transformation.

Indeed, the path to a strong, viable and unified Inuit state runs through Nuuk, Iqaluit, and Washington. By leveraging Greenland’s path to independence from Denmark and negotiating with President Trump, and then more tightly integrating Greenland and Nunavut under America’s defense and economic umbrella, Inuit can finally achieve a cohesive and sovereign Arctic state, an historic first.

The current geopolitical map fragments the Inuit nation across artificial colonial borders. Greenland operates under Danish self-rule, while Nunavut remains a territory within the Canadian confederation. Both face a shared vulnerability: vast geographic scale, small populations, and intensifying pressures from Arctic and “near-Arctic” neighbors Russia and China (and, 80 years earlier, Germany and Japan).

Neither Nuuk nor Iqaluit possesses the economic or military heft to secure the top of the world alone. A bold diplomatic realignment is required to bridge this divide. This alignment would not be entirely unprecedented, but rather an historic restoration.

During World War II, the United States stepped in as the de facto protector of both regions. Following the 1940 Nazi occupation of Denmark, Washington established a protective mandate over Greenland to secure its strategic cryolite mines and critical Arctic weather stations. Simultaneously, the U.S. Army’s Air Forces built a massive and vital airfield at Frobisher Bay — now modern-day Iqaluit — to ferry aircraft to the European front. This shared history of wartime continental defense laid the early structural and geopolitical foundations for a unified North American Arctic.

Greenland holds the key to unlocking this future. As Greenland moves closer to full independence from Denmark, it faces a gathering financial and security vacuum. Denmark’s annual subsidy cannot be easily replaced, and an independent Greenland cannot defend its massive coastline and vast EEZ. 

This is where strategic pragmatism meets historic opportunity. President Trump has famously viewed Greenland through a lens of immense strategic and economic value. Rather than resisting this interest, Greenlandic leadership should lean into it.

Instead of pivoting to Copenhagen’s familiar embrace, Nuuk could instead leverage its ongoing (if fractious) discussions with Washington to flip the script and directly negotiate a compact of free association with President Trump. Turning the table like this has been done before, and is a quirk of Trump statecraft: Just ask the Taliban, which eventually learned the frenemy of my enemy is my new best friend.

Under a COFA framework, Greenland could achieve full sovereignty and a seat at the UN, while granting the USA exclusive and perpetual military basing rights and a mandate over its external defense (powers America largely has already, through its bilateral defense treaty with Denmark, its leadership role at NATO, and its predominance at NORAD). 

This would solve Greenland’s security dilemma and inject massive American infrastructure investment into its domestic economy, replacing Danish financial dependence with American strategic partnership.

With a secure, America-protected Greenland established, the second phase of Inuit unification can begin: with its sovereign expansion and integration of Nunavut. Nunavut’s current status within Canada limits its economic autonomy and binds its security to Ottawa’s chronically underfunded, albeit newly reaffirmed, Arctic defense efforts. To break free of its stagnation, Nunavut could exercise its right to self-determination, secede from Canada, and merge with a newly independent Greenland to form a unified greater Inuit state.

This expanded Inuit state could logically find safety under a COFA negotiated by Greenland, and once Ottawa came to accept Nunavut’s secession, all parties could amicably remain part of reimagined NORAD. For Washington, extending its Greenland defense umbrella over Nunavut is logical and efficient. It would create a contiguous, secure North American Arctic buffer, streamlining continental defense under a single, unified command structure. 

For Inuit, it rejoins families, ecosystems, and resources separated for generations by western cartography. Nunavut could offer Greenland its distinct, multilevel governance model wedding its three decade-long settled Indigenous land claim treaty with its quarter-century of territorial self-governance, deftly balancing tradition and modernity. This would be transformative.

Critics may argue that trading Canadian or Danish oversight for an American protectorate merely swaps one master for another. But this misunderstands the nature of modern protectorates, such as Palau and the Marshall Islands. Under a COFA, an Inuit state would retain complete domestic sovereignty, cultural autonomy, and control over its natural resources while leveraging its new economic and educational links to America. The United States would handle the financial and logistical burden of defense, leaving the Inuit free to govern their homeland.

On the upcoming 21st day of June, a day infused with so much symbolic meaning across the North, we cannot forget that the Arctic is melting, and that a geopolitical scramble for its resources is accelerating. The status quo leaves the Inuit homeland divided, and exposed to global power struggles. On this year’s National Indigenous Peoples Day, let us look beyond symbolic recognition. 

A sovereign Inuit state, anchored by Greenland, expanded by Nunavut, and shielded by American power, is neither a radical nor imperial fantasy. It is instead a realistic pathway to enduring Arctic autonomy, and a true Inuit sovereign restoration.