From Manchuria to Greenland: the instrumentalization of minorities

In another twist that seems to take us back to international Darwinism From the 19th century, Trump is increasingly pushing to annex Greenland. The president's arguments have been unsubtle: he wants to force Denmark to sell him the territory, and his first threat is to raise tariffs. But beyond Trump, there is a constellation of pro-Trump voices that have been presenting the annexation of Greenland as a battle in defense of an oppressed minority (the Inuit) against their colonial oppressor (Denmark). Historically true facts, such as the forced contraception campaign against Inuit women or the Danish assimilation policies of decades past, are used to create an image of Denmark as a brutal colonizer. The United States and President Trump, under this rhetoric, would be the saviors the Inuit people need.

Exploiting the oppression or suffering of a minority to legitimize imperial expansion is nothing new. Perhaps the best-known example in the West is the Russians, who have justified the current invasion of Ukraine as necessary to "protect" the Russian-speaking community, just as they did in the past when arguing that they had to protect the Orthodox Christians of the Balkans from the "barbaric" Ottoman Empire, or conquer those sold into slavery in the region. France also extended its empire into the Middle East arguing for the protection of the local Christian population; the United Kingdom and Belgium justified their expansion in Africa as necessary to "protect" African communities from slave traders.

In East Asia, the dynamics were similar. In the late 19th century, Western empires instrumentalized attacks against Western missionaries or Christian converts for semi-colonizing cities in China. Decades later, the Japanese annexed de facto Northeast China, arguing that the Manchu ethnic minority should govern that territory. The last emperor of the Qing dynasty, of Manchu ethnicity, was installed as a puppet ruler of the Japanese-controlled state of Manchuria.

"Right to protect"

In the 1990s, a new form of foreign intervention began to be promoted by the United States. The so-called "right to protect" argued that in situations of genocide or ethnic cleansing, the "international community"—in practice, the US in coalition with others—had the right to intervene militarily. These were the years of Bosnia and Rwanda. The intentions were good, but the concept easily opened the door to its cynical exploitation. Disastrous interventions like those in Iraq and Afghanistan were justified, in part, by appealing to the protection of the Kurdish minority or Afghan women.

What's shocking about Greenland isn't the exploitation of minorities, but that the United States has crossed the line into using them as a weapon against Europe. The pro-Trump world has absorbed the cynical justifications—the manipulation of liberal ideas to legitimize authoritarian actions—that Putin has so successfully perfected. As happened a century ago, the weakest and most oppressed become the weapon of the predatory and powerful.