As an example, there was a conflict between the U.S. and Greenland on the service maintenance contract at Pituffik Space Base, the so-called “Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark, pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty, concerning the defense of Greenland”. But Greenlandic politicians have always known that the motivation for the maintenance contract was the defense of the U.S. itself, something that had never been officially acknowledged. This can be seen in the debate of May 2020 in the Parliament of Greenland (Inatsisartut). This was in the context of President Trump’s first expression of his wish to buy Greenland.

There had been a conflict on the service maintenance contract at Pituffik since 2013, and Members of Parliament were debating the benefit to Greenland and the Greenlandic people, which had benefitted greatly from the contract until it was awarded to an American company. The conflict was resolved in 2020 when a negotiated statement said: “In view of Pituffik’s and Greenland’s key role in Greenlandic, U.S., and transatlantic security.” This was valuable to Greenland, and it was important for the U.S. that there was recognition that it also provided security for Greenland and NATO. It thus became established in an official document that Pituffik and Greenland play a key role in U.S. security.

Seat at the table

This would not have been possible if the Government of Greenland had not had a seat at the table. Greenland has been working diligently since the 1970s to gain a seat at the table with regard to the U.S. military presence, and has gradually been gaining access. This culminated in 2013 when Greenland had the power to stop official cooperation with the U.S. government as a response to the U.S. giving the Pituffik maintenance contract to a U.S. company. It is an example of absolutely having a seat at the table.

With the increased U.S. interest in Greenland since 2019, which has been exemplified by the style of Trump, that seat at the table has been cemented for the Government of Greenland, and Denmark can no longer make decisions regarding Greenland’s position and standing without consulting Greenland. However, the added challenge for Indigenous Peoples and colonized people has been precisely their lack of seat at the table. Greenland now holds a chair but perhaps with the caveat that this chair needs to be shared with Denmark.

Although States often talk of collaboration with the Indigenous Peoples and sub-state governments, because it sounds like the right thing to do, they tend to equate collaboration with “hearing”, “consultation” or asking for input on a decision after the fact. Decisions made by States are sometimes top-down decisions violating the rights of Indigenous Peoples where, if there were a common understanding of the conflict situation, they might have agreed with the decision. A key principle in cooperation between States and Indigenous Peoples is free, prior, and informed consent. However, this becomes impossible if classified information does not reach the Indigenous Peoples.

Collaboration and Cooperation

Collaboration means that all parties are working towards the same goal. States and Indigenous Peoples often do not want the same thing and are often in conflict. It is therefore not honest to talk of collaboration or consultation when trying to engage with Indigenous Peoples and the organizations representing them.

If States instead focus on cooperation, on ensuring the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the focus will be more honest. Acknowledging the different interests and wishes is the first step in a negotiation. Cooperation means that the parties do not necessarily want the same thing but can work together to each achieve their goal. This includes in post-conflict and conflict situations and in the context of defense and security policy.

A seat at the table therefore requires continued negotiation between the sub-state government and State governments, including Indigenous organizations. State governments therefore need to relinquish the privilege of State authority and monopoly.

A seat at the table therefore requires continued negotiation between the sub-state government and State governments, including Indigenous organizations.

Unfortunately, because marginalized people always have to fight for power, it puts demands on Greenland’s Indigenous Communities to educate themselves on security and defense terminology. This is because if Indigenous knowledge, priorities and expertise can be translated into terms that a four-star general can understand, they are more likely to listen. The Chief of Joint Arctic Command in Greenland, for example, understands that cooperation with hunters and fishermen is an operational necessity but he talks about it in terms of military vocabulary.

A seat at the table therefore requires continued negotiation between the sub-state government and State governments, including Indigenous organizations. State governments therefore need to relinquish the privilege of State authority and monopoly. Similarly, in matters of national security, Indigenous security must be respected as equally important for State security.

Free, Prior and Informed Consent and Narrative Warfare

It is important that information sharing ensures that Indigenous organizations and sub-state governments understand the State’s decision, and may be able to offer better solutions based on their knowledge on the ground. Most of all, it requires real cooperation, not after the fact engagement (which has unfortunately become frequent in recent years). In some places, this will require legislative changes to certain laws that govern who has access to classified information, and who can share what information with whom. Indigenous organizations and governments also need to study their own State’s defense and security apparatus, with the aim of understanding the language they use to make determinations on priorities.

On the other hand, there are a growing number and diversity of actors participating in matters of national security in the Arctic (including Indigenous organizations and sub-state governments), often with little to no experience of operating with classified intelligence. In this context, we must ask, why does information sharing matter, in particular with regard to Indigenous rights?

“Hybrid Warfare”: where, within the wider geo-strategic competition, there is a vying for international standing and positioning. Indigenous Peoples can become significant pawns in this type of narrative warfare.

“Hybrid Warfare”: where, within the wider geo-strategic competition, there is a vying for international standing and positioning.

One reason is the rise in what is called “below-the-threshold warfare”, aggression between nation-states that does not rise to the level of war. This is also known as “Hybrid Warfare”, where, within the wider geo-strategic competition, there is a vying for international standing and positioning. Indigenous Peoples can become significant pawns in this type of narrative warfare. For example, in its development and foreign policy, Finland identifies that it wants to promote and defend the rights of Indigenous Peoples. And yet, just last year, the Committee on the Rights of the Child had to tell Finland that it should respect the rights of the Sámi.

This type of hypocrisy becomes a narrative weapon against the West at large whenever Western countries try to criticize China, for example, on the rights of the Uyghur. The U.S. has also used these kinds of story in Greenland to justify their desire to help Greenland achieve independence from Danish colonialism. Canada and the Nordics have begun efforts of truth and reconciliation, and national security and State cohesion are motivating factors.

The Hybrid Warfare Danger of the Green Transition

It is finally important to note that these risks are not unique to the Arctic. There is an increasing risk of influence warfare aimed at disrupting the relationship between Indigenous organizations and governments. In Central and South America, nation-state action has often been motivated by a desire to exploit natural resources on Indigenous lands. When nation-states weigh their desires and needs against the rights of Indigenous People, the scale tips in favor of the States.

The transition to clean energy and renewables has increased the need for critical minerals, and it is not just States who are actors in this. The EU and NATO, for example, consider certain minerals and supply chains strategic. This has led some governments to speed up approval processes that were originally designed to protect the environment and the rights of Indigenous Peoples. States sometimes justify violations of the rights of Indigenous Peoples in the name of national security and strategic priorities. This type of violation may then become a tool in influence campaigns.

Greenland used to be partly protected due to Google’s difficulty in translating to and from Greenlandic but large-scale language translation models are now changing that.

Greenland used to be partly protected due to Google’s difficulty in translating to and from Greenlandic but large-scale language translation models are now changing that.

These types of narrative can be avoided – and the risk of narrative warfare thus mitigated – through information campaigns. Cooperation, timely involvement of Indigenous organizations and sub-state governments, can thus mitigate the risk of disagreements being exploited. Sharing of classified information also ensures that States and the Indigenous organizations operate with the same situational awareness.

The threat of disinformation and foreign malign influence is increasing with the rise of AI and disinformation. Greenland, for example, used to be partly protected due to Google’s difficulty in translating to and from Greenlandic but large-scale language translation models are now changing that. As nation-states, allied nations and regional organizations operate more strategically to try and position themselves, they are increasingly ignoring the rights of Indigenous People in favor of their position and standing in geopolitics.

Some of the following were given as input during the EMRIP seminar in Geneva, Switzerland, December 3-5, 2025. It has been formatted as a memorandum.

The post The Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Conflict and Post-conflict Situations: Lessons from Greenland appeared first on Debates Indígenas.