The Unraveling of Post-War Order

The world is witnessing an unprecedented crisis in the Western alliance system. President Donald Trump’s explicit threats to seize Greenland by force represent not merely a bilateral dispute between Washington and Copenhagen, but a fundamental challenge to the rules-based international order that has underpinned global security since 1945. For Singapore, a small nation whose prosperity depends entirely on respect for international law and territorial sovereignty, these developments carry profound and unsettling implications.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s stark warning that any US military action against Greenland would mean “the end of NATO” is not hyperbole. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s foundational principle is collective defense under Article 5, where an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. The prospect of the alliance’s most powerful member attacking another member state would not only violate this core tenet but would shatter seven decades of transatlantic security architecture.

A Disturbing Timeline

Trump’s statements aboard Air Force One reveal a calculated approach to what he frames as a security imperative. His declaration to address Greenland “in about two months” or “in 20 days” suggests this is not idle rhetoric but a genuine policy objective with an operational timeline. This comes immediately after the extraordinary US military raid on Caracas that resulted in the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, demonstrating Trump’s willingness to use force to achieve geopolitical objectives regardless of international norms.

The timing is significant. By coupling these events, Trump signals a doctrine of unilateral American action based on perceived national security interests, unconstrained by alliance obligations, international law, or the sovereignty of other nations. For the first time since World War II, a Danish intelligence agency has identified the United States as a potential security threat, marking a historic rupture in transatlantic relations.

Strategic Value of Greenland

Trump’s obsession with Greenland is not irrational from a great power competition perspective. The world’s largest island occupies a commanding position in the Arctic, controlling sea routes that will become increasingly navigable as climate change reduces ice cover. Greenland hosts Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), America’s northernmost military installation, and radar systems critical for detecting missile launches and monitoring space assets.

As China and Russia expand their Arctic presence, Greenland’s strategic value has multiplied. The island possesses vast deposits of rare earth minerals essential for modern technology and defense systems. Control of Greenland would give the United States dominance over Arctic approaches to North America and a commanding position in the emerging great power competition in the High North.

However, Greenland is not an ungoverned territory available for purchase or seizure. It is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, whose 56,000 inhabitants have repeatedly made clear their desire for self-determination. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen’s characterization of Trump’s rhetoric as “disrespectful” reflects the bewilderment of a people suddenly finding themselves the object of great power territorial ambitions in the 21st century.

Implications for the Global Order

The Greenland crisis represents a watershed moment for international relations. If the United States can threaten military action against a NATO ally to acquire territory deemed strategically valuable, what constraints remain on great power behavior? The implications extend far beyond the Arctic.

For decades, the United States has been the principal guarantor of the rules-based order, enforcing principles of territorial sovereignty and freedom of navigation while maintaining alliance commitments that deterred aggression. American credibility as an ally and upholder of international law has been the foundation of this system. Trump’s threats against Greenland fundamentally undermine that credibility.

European nations have pledged support for Denmark, but their capacity to deter American military action is limited. NATO without American participation would be a hollow shell. The European Union lacks the military capability to defend a member state against US forces. This powerlessness in the face of American unilateralism may accelerate European efforts toward strategic autonomy, but such capabilities will take decades to develop.

The Central African Republic Parallel

The second article about President Faustin-Archange Touadera’s election to a third term in the Central African Republic, following the 2023 removal of presidential term limits, provides an instructive counterpoint. Western democracies have consistently criticized African leaders who eliminate term limits and entrench themselves in power. The international community views such constitutional manipulations as undermining democratic norms and enabling authoritarianism.

Yet the Greenland crisis reveals a parallel erosion of norms at the heart of the Western order itself. When the United States threatens military action against an ally to acquire territory, it employs the logic of might-makes-right that characterizes the behavior it criticizes in others. Touadera’s reliance on Russian mercenaries and Rwandan soldiers to maintain security mirrors a broader trend of states turning to unconventional security arrangements when traditional partnerships prove inadequate.

Both situations reflect the fragmentation of the post-Cold War consensus on governance, sovereignty, and international law. The distinction between democratic and authoritarian behavior becomes harder to maintain when democratic powers act in ways indistinguishable from authoritarian ones.

Singapore’s Dilemma

For Singapore, these developments present an acute strategic challenge. As a small city-state without natural resources or territorial depth, Singapore’s security and prosperity depend absolutely on the principle that sovereignty and territorial integrity must be respected regardless of a nation’s size or power. The inviolability of borders and the sanctity of international law are not abstract principles for Singapore; they are existential necessities.

Singapore has long walked a careful diplomatic line, maintaining strong relationships with both the United States and China while championing ASEAN centrality and international law. The country has been a beneficiary of the American-led order, relying on US naval presence to guarantee freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and maintaining close defense ties with Washington. Simultaneously, Singapore has developed deep economic relationships with China and positioned itself as a neutral hub for great power diplomacy.

The Greenland crisis forces Singapore to confront uncomfortable questions about the reliability of American commitments and the durability of the rules-based order. If Washington can threaten military action against a treaty ally in pursuit of strategic interests, what value do American security guarantees hold? If territorial sovereignty can be violated by the system’s principal guarantor, what protection does international law provide?

Regional Implications

The crisis reverberates throughout Southeast Asia, where territorial disputes in the South China Sea remain unresolved and Chinese assertiveness continues to challenge established norms. China’s island-building and militarization of disputed features have been widely criticized as violations of international law and the rights of smaller nations. The United States has conducted freedom of navigation operations to challenge these claims and reassure regional allies.

However, Trump’s Greenland threats severely undermine America’s moral authority to criticize Chinese behavior. Beijing can now point to American willingness to use force against an ally to acquire strategically valuable territory, arguing that Washington applies international law selectively based on its interests. This erosion of normative constraints may embolden more aggressive Chinese behavior in disputed waters, calculating that American credibility to rally international opposition has been fatally compromised.

For ASEAN nations caught between American and Chinese power, the Greenland crisis suggests that neither great power can be relied upon to respect the sovereignty of smaller states when strategic interests are at stake. This may accelerate efforts toward regional security cooperation independent of great power patronage, though ASEAN’s consensus-based approach and internal divisions make such coordination extremely difficult.

Economic and Strategic Fallout

The potential collapse of NATO would have devastating economic consequences globally. The alliance has been fundamental to European security and political stability since 1949. Without it, Europe would face profound uncertainty about security arrangements, likely triggering increased defense spending and potential rearmament by individual states, including possible nuclear proliferation.

Financial markets would react with extreme volatility to such instability in the world’s largest economic bloc. Singapore, as a major financial center and trading hub, would face significant disruption to capital flows and trade relationships. The city-state’s role as a stable, predictable environment for business would be threatened by the broader global uncertainty.

Moreover, the fracturing of the Western alliance would accelerate the formation of alternative power blocs, likely centered around China and a weakened, isolated United States. Singapore would face intense pressure to choose sides in a way it has successfully avoided for decades. The policy of strategic ambiguity and hedging that has served Singapore well assumes a relatively stable international environment with clear rules. In a world of naked power politics between rival blocs, neutrality becomes much harder to maintain.

The Sovereignty Precedent

Perhaps most troubling for Singapore is the precedent that military acquisition of territory by a major power would establish. The post-1945 international order, codified in the UN Charter, explicitly prohibits the acquisition of territory by force. This principle has been violated periodically but never entirely abandoned as a norm. Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 was widely condemned and sanctioned precisely because it violated this fundamental rule.

If the United States successfully takes control of Greenland through military coercion, it would signal that the principle of territorial integrity is dead. Other powers would inevitably follow suit where they possess the capability and perceive strategic advantage. For Singapore, surrounded by much larger neighbors and controlling one of the world’s most strategic maritime chokepoints, this would create an environment of existential threat.

The Malacca Strait’s strategic value to global trade and energy flows makes it a potential target for coercion by powers seeking to control critical infrastructure. While Indonesia and Malaysia are ASEAN partners with no current territorial ambitions toward Singapore, the normalization of territorial seizure based on strategic value would create long-term uncertainty about Singapore’s security that no amount of military spending could fully address.

Navigating Uncertainty

Singapore’s response to this crisis will require extraordinary diplomatic skill. The government must find ways to signal its profound concern about the erosion of international law without directly antagonizing the United States, a critical security and economic partner. This likely means working through multilateral forums like ASEAN and the United Nations to reinforce principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity while avoiding bilateral criticism of American policy.

Singapore may also need to accelerate defense modernization and deepen security cooperation with like-minded middle powers who share concerns about the erosion of the rules-based order. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia, and European nations facing similar dilemmas could form informal coalitions to preserve elements of the international system even as the American security umbrella becomes less reliable.

Economically, Singapore must prepare for a more fragmented world by diversifying trade relationships and strengthening regional economic integration through frameworks like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. The city-state’s role as a neutral hub for business and diplomacy becomes even more valuable in a divided world, but only if Singapore can successfully maintain that neutrality in the face of intensifying pressure from competing blocs.

The Broader Democratic Crisis

The Greenland crisis also highlights a deeper problem facing democratic societies: the tension between democratic domestic politics and stable international commitments. Trump’s actions reflect domestic political pressures and nationalist sentiment rather than considered strategic analysis of American interests. The volatility of democratic politics, when combined with great power capabilities, creates profound uncertainty for allies and partners.

This challenge extends beyond any individual leader. The rise of nationalist populism across Western democracies suggests that the internationalist consensus that built the post-war order is breaking down. Future leaders may face similar domestic pressures to prioritize narrow national interests over alliance obligations and international rules. For countries like Singapore that depend on predictable behavior from great powers, this democratic volatility is almost as concerning as authoritarian unpredictability.

Conclusion: An Uncertain Future

The Greenland crisis marks a potential turning point in modern history, comparable to the collapse of the Concert of Europe in 1914 or the abandonment of collective security in the 1930s. If NATO dissolves and the United States pursues unilateral territorial acquisition by force, the international system will enter uncharted territory. The rules-based order that has enabled unprecedented prosperity and relative peace will have definitively ended, replaced by something resembling 19th-century great power competition but with 21st-century weapons and stakes.

For Singapore, this is a nightmare scenario. The country’s entire strategic position rests on the premise that international law and norms protect small states from coercion by large ones. Without that protection, Singapore must rely solely on its own capabilities and the uncertain goodwill of more powerful neighbors. No amount of defense spending or diplomatic skill can fully compensate for the loss of a rules-based international order.

The coming weeks and months will reveal whether this crisis can be defused through diplomacy or whether it represents the beginning of a fundamental reordering of international relations. Singapore must prepare for the latter possibility while working toward the former outcome. The stakes could hardly be higher, not just for the Arctic or the transatlantic alliance, but for the entire architecture of global governance that has preserved Singapore’s sovereignty and prosperity for nearly six decades.

In this uncertain environment, Singapore’s voice matters. As a small state that has successfully navigated great power competition and championed international law, Singapore has moral authority to speak for the many nations that would suffer in a world where might makes right. The question is whether that voice, along with those of other concerned nations, can be heard above the clash of great powers pursuing their perceived interests without constraint.