What was initially treated as a joke has turned out to be a threat to global peace and cooperation. The dispute over Greenland and the United States’ desire to control this island confirm that big players do not always deal with “diplomacy” and “cooperation” cards. In his January 21 speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Donald Trump claimed that his country “gave Greenland back” to Denmark after World War II. In view of the fact that the world is currently enduring a period of heightened geopolitical competition, do the U.S. actions indicate a shift away from multilateral cooperation and the shaping of a new world order and how will all this end? Check out some experts’ opinions below on this topic.
Key Takeaways:
- During his speech at the 2026 World Economic Forum in Davos, President Trump stated it was “unacceptable” that Greenland should not come under his country’s control and has threatened punitive tariffs on any country that opposes his plans.
- According to experts, the excessive use of power-based politics at the expense of multilateral cooperation poses a direct threat to strategic and economic interests and weakens global governance systems that have been built on stability and cooperation.
- The friction between the United States and the European Union will lead to increased prices, limiting access to global markets for developing countries.
- This situation reinforces the perception that larger, more developed nations can leverage military strength, economic power, and strategic influence to advance their interests, often at the expense of smaller or less powerful territories.
- Experts warn that when the World Trade Organization, the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization, and sovereignty become optional for powerful states, smaller countries lose their only protection against coercion.
DevelopmentAid: Do the U.S.’s ambitions for Greenland and the trade threats to the EU signal a shift away from multilateral cooperation toward power-based politics, and what could this mean for global development?
“Yes, these moves confirm a deeper shift toward power-based politics with serious implications for global development. The United States has always balanced national interest with multilateral engagement, but the current rhetoric explicitly rejects rules-based norms. This signals to developing countries that international institutions are optional, and raw leverage matters more than shared frameworks. This weakens existing international organizations, undermines climate cooperation, and makes collective action on pandemics or trade harder to sustain. For aid, the consequences are immediate. Development budgets are increasingly being earmarked for geopolitical goals – security partnerships, migration control, and countering rivals. Countries in Africa and Asia face pressure to align with competing blocs rather than negotiate as partners. That erodes the governance compact that aid should support and replaces effectiveness criteria with tests of political loyalty. Europe is not immune. The EU’s “beyond aid” agenda – linking trade, investment, and migration – becomes more urgent, but internal cohesion is fragile. NDICI–Global Europe already reflects geopolitical mandates. U.S. pressure accelerates this trend, with democracy assistance being squeezed by security and economic imperatives. The result is a fragmented aid system, politicized flows, and weakened global public goods provision. Developing countries may gain short-term bargaining power but face long-term instability as rules-based cooperation unravels.”
“Trade and global development thrive in an environment where mutual trust and collaboration exist among countries. Recent U.S. statements suggesting a willingness to acquire Greenland “at any cost” including threats of increased tariffs on the EU, of which Denmark, Greenland’s governing state, is a member, are of real concern. This signals a shift from multilateral cooperation toward power-based politics.”
“The excessive use of power-based politics at the expense of multilateral cooperation poses a direct threat to strategic and economic interests and weakens global governance systems that have been built on stability and cooperation. This approach reduces focus on development priorities and negatively affects the stability of global trade.”
“Given that detailed intelligence and strategic assessments are not available to the public, it is difficult to fully judge the motivation behind recent U.S. actions through a purely normative lens. What can be assessed, however, is the broader structure of global power. The past decades of increasingly multi-polar governance have often produced paralysis rather than cooperation, with competing powers blocking collective action on trade, security, and climate. From this perspective, the U.S. moves on Greenland and trade pressure on the EU do reflect a shift toward power-based politics – but this shift may offer a degree of predictability and stability that fragmented multilateralism has failed to provide.”
“A shift towards power-based politics could potentially undermine multilateral cooperation, leading to increased geopolitical tensions and strained global governance. The U.S. interest in Greenland, driven by the island’s strategic location and resources, may set a precedent for powerful countries like Russia, the UK, India, and China to prioritise their interests over the sovereignty of smaller nations. Other powerful nations could be tempted to pursue similar strategies, exacerbating tensions and instability.”
“Recent actions by the Trump administration make it clear the shift to power-based politics has already happened. The administration declares its intentions and then uses coercive tactics, regardless of the topic or country. Looking ahead, bigger powers will increasingly seek to force their preferences upon smaller ones. This presents significant challenges. The Trump administration has repeatedly proven its own agreements cannot be trusted. Look at its tariff regimes. A cycle persists where deals are made, ripped up, remade and used as a cudgel — all within months. Acquiescence to U.S. demands is futile — the administration consistently seeks ever greater concessions. Countries must hold firm to their core interests. In the long term, they will hedge against an unreliable U.S. government. This dynamic makes resources scarcer, and trust costlier. Yet, hope remains. The multilateral rules-based order was, and is, its own kind of great power. In the face of power-politics, an opportunity exists to renew and strengthen relationships that are fit for purpose in the 21st century. Ones that recognize materials, financing, labor, and expertise are the resources needed by all countries. A better balance among sound development investments, resource flows, and fair, mutual economic prosperity is there for the making. Working together, it can be realized.”
DevelopmentAid: How could increasing U.S.–EU trade tensions affect developing countries?
“Rising U.S.—EU trade tensions will hit developing countries the hardest through three channels – market access disruption, reduced policy space, and attention being diverted from development priorities. Firstly, tariff escalation between major economies shrinks global demand and disrupts supply chains that many developing countries depend on for export-led growth. African manufacturers integrated into European value chains or Asian exporters serving U.S. markets face sudden cost increases and drops in demand without having the fiscal buffers that rich countries have. Secondly, as the U.S. and EU compete for influence, developing countries face pressure to choose sides in trade agreements, technology standards, and investment partnerships. That forces costly decisions – align with one bloc and risk retaliation from the other, or try balancing between them while sacrificing the deeper benefits of integration. Thirdly, donor attention shifts inward. EU budgets prioritize European competitiveness and defense; U.S. aid becomes more transactional. The WTO weakens further, leaving poor countries without effective dispute mechanisms. Climate finance, debt relief, and trade facilitation – already underfunded – get pushed aside as rich countries focus on their own economic security. The result? Slower growth, less predictable trade rules, and aid that is increasingly tied to geopolitical alignment rather than development outcomes.”
“While the U.S. cites national security and economic reasons for its interest in Greenland, these actions risk straining U.S.–EU relations. However, such tensions could present opportunities for developing countries and regions, as the EU may begin to seek alternative trade partnerships, strengthening ties with China, and developing economies in Africa and Asia.”
“The conflict between the United States and the European Union leads to rising prices, limiting access to global markets for developing countries. It may also reduce the volume of grants and humanitarian and development assistance to smaller countries, increasing the risk of food insecurity due to disputes between donor states and major economies.”
“A single dominant power, while imperfect, can enforce rules, secure trade routes, and deter opportunistic conflict more effectively than a system of rival centers. For developing countries, U.S.–EU trade tensions may create short-term disruptions, but a clearer hierarchy can also reduce uncertainty and open space for alignment and growth.”
“Tensions between the U.S. and the EU could lead to several scenarios:
- Escalating tensions, where relations between two Western superpowers deteriorate, could lead to a more fragmented global economy.
- There is also a possibility of negotiations that could lead to a compromise, easing tensions and preserving cooperation.
- There could also possibly be a shift in alliances, whereby other nations could respond to U.S. actions by forming new alliances away from the US.
For Africa, tense relationships could lead to increased competition for the continent’s resources, potentially diverting investment and attention away from the continent. For example, in December 2025, the U.S. brokered a historic peace and economic agreement with the Democratic Republic of Congo (Washington Accord for Peace and Prosperity). However, this could also create opportunities for developing countries to negotiate better deals and diversify their trade partnerships.”
DevelopmentAid: What precedent could U.S. interest in Greenland set for how powerful countries deal with smaller or strategically important regions?
“U.S. interest in Greenland sets a troubling precedent whereby strategic geography and access to resources now openly trump sovereignty norms, and smaller regions become bargaining chips in great-power competition. Historically, powerful states have pursued influence through aid, investment, soft power, or security partnerships while at least rhetorically respecting territorial integrity. Public discussion of territorial acquisition – even if symbolic – signals that such norms are negotiable when the strategic interests are high enough. For developing countries in resource-rich or geographically critical areas, this is alarming. The Arctic, rare earth minerals, deep-sea ports, and chokepoints like the Red Sea or Pacific islands all become targets for coercive diplomacy. This emboldens other powers. If the U.S. openly pursues Greenland, China will feel justified pressuring Pacific island states, Russia will leverage energy dependence in Central Asia, and regional powers will make moves on smaller neighbors. Smaller countries will lose the multilateral protection they once relied on – UN resolutions, trade rules, alliance commitments – and will face direct bilateral pressure they cannot resist. For development, this means aid and investment increasingly coming with strings attached – base rights, exclusive resource deals, political alignment. Countries that resist face isolation or economic punishment. Sovereignty becomes conditional on strategic compliance, and the space for independent development policy shrinks dramatically.”
“This situation reinforces the perception that larger, more developed nations can leverage military strength, economic power, and strategic influence to advance their interests, often at the expense of smaller or less powerful territories. This is particularly concerning for strategically located regions such as Greenland in the Arctic, which holds growing geopolitical significance.”
“Intervention in the affairs of smaller regions at the expense of sovereignty and local governance helps to normalize the idea that powerful countries can exert influence over weaker ones. This undermines the sovereignty of smaller states and allows for the exploitation of their resources and strategic importance, as seen in the case of Greenland.”
“Interest in Greenland sets a precedent that strategic regions will matter increasingly, yet under a hegemonic system, this competition may be managed rather than chaotic. Overall, while uncomfortable, a consolidated power structure may ultimately prove more stabilizing than an ineffective multipolar order.”
DevelopmentAid: What will be the outcome of this situation?
“We are watching the institutional architecture that restrained great-power competition disintegrate in real time, and history offers no reassuring outcomes when this happens. This is not merely about Greenland or tariffs – it is about whether democracies will abandon the legal frameworks built precisely to avoid repeating early twentieth-century catastrophes. When the WTO, NATO, and sovereignty norms become optional for powerful states, smaller countries lose their only protection against coercion. They face stark choices: militarize, align with a protective hegemon, or submit to whoever offers the best deal. Economic and security orders are now decoupling. Trade no longer disciplines power politics, it amplifies it. Aid becomes leverage, borders become negotiable, and treaties become tactical. This teaches other powers – Russia, China, regional actors – that contempt for the rules is a rational strategy. The contagion spreads. History shows two paths – a renewed commitment to the negotiated frameworks that constrain all players, or escalating fragmentation that will end in major conflict. The middle ground – stable multipolarity without institutions – has never lasted. For developing countries, both paths are dangerous, but the second would be catastrophic. Development requires predictable rules, open markets, and sovereign policy space. All three are now at risk.”
“The real outcome of this current situation is not yet very clear. Although Greenland is being actively courted with economic incentives by the US, the people of Greenland continue to assert they are not for sale. One likely scenario is that Greenland maintains autonomy, remains within Denmark, and leverages this attention to attract investors, expanding its economy, as it cannot rely indefinitely on Danish subsidies once full autonomy or independence is achieved.”
See also: The abduction of the Venezuelan President: consequences for global development | Experts’ Opinions
As global cooperation becomes more uncertain, international development experts will play an even greater role in defending vulnerable communities and protecting human rights. DevelopmentAid’s Individual Professional Membership helps professionals to stay connected to job opportunities, organizations, tenders and grants for individuals, salary trends, and many more useful. With the right cards in their hands, members can win the competition game in this very challenging job market.
