Why Africans Must Learn from an Arctic Island Fighting for Control Over Its Future
Greenland may seem like a frozen, remote island tucked away in the Arctic—but beneath the icy surface lies a political standoff that holds powerful lessons for African nations still struggling to define and defend their sovereignty.
Contrary to what many believe, Greenland is not a fully sovereign nation. It remains an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. While it governs many of its internal affairs—such as education, natural resources, and health—critical powers like foreign policy, defense, and currency are still controlled from Copenhagen.
This arrangement may appear harmless on paper, but it echoes the very pattern that many African nations have lived through since so-called independence. It is the age-old playbook of neo-colonial control: grant local autonomy while retaining control over the levers of real power.
Greenland’s predicament returned to global headlines after the announcement of a U.S. vice-presidential visit to the Pituffik Space Base, a military installation the United States operates in northwest Greenland. The visit sparked political tensions, prompting Greenlandic and Danish officials to raise concerns about foreign interference. These concerns are not unfounded, especially considering that former U.S. President Donald Trump has revived his suggestion that the U.S. should “acquire” Greenland for strategic and economic reasons.
The question is not just about Greenland’s future—it’s about how autonomy without full sovereignty leaves smaller nations and territories vulnerable to geopolitical manipulation. And it’s a warning Africa should take seriously.
Africa may boast of having 54 independent nations, but how many truly control their economies, their skies, their military decisions, or even their digital infrastructure? In many cases, the answer is painfully clear: not many. Foreign military bases dot the continent, from Djibouti to Niger. Multinational companies extract resources while offering little transparency or long-term value. And development loans come with clauses that keep countries in cycles of debt dependency.
Greenland’s situation brings these contradictions into sharp focus. If a tiny Arctic territory with just over 56,000 people can resist pressure from a global superpower, then what excuse do the leaders of vast, resource-rich African nations have for surrendering control over their people’s future?
There are several key takeaways from Greenland’s ongoing struggle.
First, sovereignty is not a diplomatic gift—it must be demanded, protected, and at times, fought for. Greenland’s leadership has made it clear that their island is not for sale, no matter who comes knocking. African leaders must adopt the same uncompromising posture when it comes to natural resources, land rights, and economic policy.
Second, control over resources must translate into control over destiny. Greenland has the legal authority to regulate and manage its own mining operations. While it still relies on Danish subsidies, it is gradually building an economy centered on what it owns. Contrast this with African nations that sign away oil blocks, mineral rights, or telecom infrastructure to foreign entities with minimal public consultation or accountability.
Third, military dependence is a Trojan horse for political subordination. The U.S. does not need Greenlandic approval to operate out of Pituffik Space Base. Similarly, Africa’s skies are often under surveillance not by African forces, but by foreign drones and military contractors. As long as we lease our territory for the benefit of others, we remain passengers in our own geopolitical journey.
Finally, the power of collective resistance should not be underestimated. Greenlandic citizens and political figures have publicly condemned attempts to co-opt their island’s future. They have framed the conversation around dignity, self-determination, and the right to shape their own destiny. African citizens must be equally vocal, equally organized, and equally unapologetic in defending their interests.
Greenland may not yet be sovereign, but its resistance offers a compelling model. It demonstrates that even small territories can assert their rights, challenge imperialist narratives, and disrupt the plans of more powerful nations. Africa, with its demographic weight, cultural diversity, and resource abundance, has no excuse for being a silent spectator in its own story.
The lesson here is urgent. Africa must move beyond ceremonial independence. It must demand not just the symbols of freedom, but the structures of sovereignty. Greenland is not just an icy island in the North—it is a mirror. And in that mirror, Africa must ask: Are we really free, or are we simply managing our own containment?
It is time for Africa to reclaim the power it never truly lost—but was told to forget. The future of the continent lies not in more foreign deals or military partnerships, but in the courage to say, “This land, this sky, this future—belongs to us.”
