Even without minerals, U.S. interest in Greenland would remain high for defense reasons. In conclusion, U.S. policy towards Greenland can be clearly summarized: it is not about territory, but about strategic control. The most important. It blocks Russian/Chinese expansion. It ends dependence on China for rare earths. Long-term wealth from oil and minerals. The U.S. strategic position on Greenland, beyond formal sovereignty debates, considers Greenland an indispensable asset for its national defense and for control of the Atlantic-Arctic axis. The most sensitive element is the total exclusion of China and Russia from any strategic presence. The United States does not pursue annexation or formal sovereignty over Greenland. However, the main priority is national security and control of the Arctic-Atlantic axis. In this sense, Greenland is conceived not as a conventional foreign space, but as advanced national security infrastructure. The United States demands a guarantee of continuous, unrestricted political access to Greenlandese territory for military purposes. The United States will accept various formal sovereignties, but will not compromise its national defense or its dominance of the Atlantic-Arctic axis. In this sense, Greenland is not an exception, but an exemplary case of the power logic that will continue to shape the geopolitical order in the coming decades. THE author Octavio Vallarino, Arias, Mechanical Engineer, graduate of Texas A&M University. Although Panama exercises full sovereignty over the Canal, the United States reserves the right to intervene to guarantee its neutrality and operation. Greenland clearly fits into this strategic tradition. U.S. interest in Greenland's rare earth minerals is strategic, not commercial. Any institutional framework that does not guarantee this will be reviewed under pressure. The guiding principle is identical: when an infrastructure or territory is critical to U.S. security, control of the outcomes prevails over formal considerations of sovereignty. The underlying logic replicates historical precedents such as the security doctrine applied to the Panama Canal, offering relevant lessons for Latin America. Its location under the polar trajectories of intercontinental ballistic missiles and on the transit axis between the Arctic and the North Atlantic makes it a central node for early warning, space surveillance, and maritime control. OPINION Octavio Vallarino The benefits of Greenland for the U.S. However, it also does not accept arrangements that limit its ability to guarantee the security outcomes it considers vital. In practice, this implies a willingness to exercise diplomatic, economic, or strategic pressure to modify Danish, Greenlandic, or even NATO frameworks if they prove insufficient. This logic is not new. The underlying U.S. strategic logic seeks to preserve the ability to expand its presence—in personnel, sensors, air, or maritime platforms—without depending on prolonged renegotiations with local actors or allies. They cannot be considered as a position of this medium The U.S. doctrine historically applied to the Panama Canal offers a direct parallel. This access is not limited to existing facilities but also includes the possibility of adapting and modernizing capabilities. Development Partner Bahia since 1984, one of the main real estate project promotion companies in Panama of luxury condominiums, office buildings, and hotels. www.desarrollobahia.com The opinions expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author. would be: Total control of defense in the Arctic. Permanent access, expansion capability, and denial of rivals constitute red lines. Washington seeks to reduce its dependence on China-dominated supply chains for rare earths, uranium, and graphite essential for defense, energy, and advanced technology. Consulting engineer for 10 years in the air conditioning industry and then dedicated to real estate projects since 1980 with the start of his first project, Vallarino Building in the Banking Area.
