Greenland vs. Karabakh: Denmark’s selective interpretation of international law Sovereignty for some, not for others

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has become extraordinarily active, which is undoubtedly triggered by certain statements from U.S. President Donald Trump, particularly his emphasis on the necessity of Greenland for the United States "for national security purposes." As he put it, this is about "protecting the free world. You have Russian ships all over the place."

On January 28, during a conversation with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stressed the importance of European unity and close cooperation, highlighting the uncertain realities in a joint press statement. She also met with French President Emmanuel Macron and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, urging the international community to respect the territories and sovereignty of states, a principle she described as fundamental to the global order, achieved through joint efforts since World War II.

Frederiksen emphasized the need for proactive steps to build a stronger and more determined Europe, capable of safeguarding and advancing both the continent and European interests. According to her, Europe’s future hinges on this approach, which is why "we have to take more responsibility for our own security." In this regard, the Danish government announced a major investment in Greenland's defence, pledging over 2 billion dollars to enhance its security infrastructure.

Against this backdrop, the idea of defending what Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the fundamental elements of the international community has been echoed by several key EU officials.

First, European Commissioner for Defence Andrius Kubilius declared the EU’s readiness to support Denmark on this issue. Soon after, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot entered the discussion, not ruling out the possibility of deploying troops to Greenland. However, in typical fashion for official Paris, Barrot’s statement came with conditions—he clarified that France would be willing to take action only if Copenhagen formally requested assistance.

Meanwhile, Finnish Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen strongly reaffirmed Greenland's protection under NATO’s Article 5, which guarantees mutual defence in the event of an armed attack or invasion. She stressed that as the Arctic region gains strategic importance, "when a state challenges the foundations of our common security, we must rise to vigorously defend our principles."

When reading these statements, exclamations, and emotional outpourings from Western leaders—who see themselves as paragons of democracy and rule of law—one cannot help but wonder: why are they so selective? Is the blood of Azerbaijanis any different from that of Greenlanders? Why must the "fundamental norms of international law" be strictly upheld for Greenland, yet conveniently ignored when it comes to Azerbaijan?

These questions are far from rhetorical, especially when considering Denmark’s position. A telling example lies in the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry's list of personae non gratae, which includes two Danish nationals who illegally visited Karabakh during the occupation, violating Azerbaijan’s Law on the State Border and entering without official permission.

One of them, Karsten Møller, then President of the Danish Military Academy, participated as an observer in the so-called "presidential elections" of the puppet “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR)” regime in 2007. The other, Danny Gert Lourence, an expert in information and communication technologies (ICT), made an illegal visit to occupied Karabakh in 2012 to conduct an "ICT seminar for youth"—in reality, for separatists and families of terrorists who openly mocked the very principles of international law that Western liberals claim to uphold.

Turning the page, we find yet another revealing episode. In 2013, a delegation of Danish MPs and journalists, led by then-chair of the Danish Parliament’s European Affairs Committee, Eva Kjer Hansen, visited occupied Karabakh. There, they held a meeting with the so-called “foreign minister” of the puppet “NKR” regime, a figure by the name of Mirzoyan.

But the engagement did not stop there. In 2016, this same separatist was welcomed in Copenhagen on what was described as a “working visit.” As part of the trip, he attended an official reception organized by the Armenian Embassy in Denmark to mark the so-called “25th anniversary of the NKR.” In the presence of diplomats, politicians, and public figures, he openly spoke about the “anticipated integration of Artsakh into the civilised world.”

Moreover, Mirzoyan was given access to meetings with various political circles before taking part in Denmark’s annual Folkemødet (“People’s Meeting”) on the island of Bornholm. Adding further insult, during his visit to the island’s art museum, the museum’s directorate had no qualms about gifting him a painting by art historian Leni Goldenberg—for none other than the Shusha Museum.

So, the question arises: why did official Copenhagen deliberately support Armenia’s anti-Azerbaijani actions and the Karabakh separatists and terrorists—those with the blood of Azerbaijan women, children, and elderly on their hands? Did Denmark simply not understand the "fundamental principles of international law" at the time? Is that even plausible? And if they did understand, what does that say about their stance?

There’s another intriguing aspect to consider. While Greenland is politically part of Denmark, various sources classify it as part of North America in terms of physical geography, as it lies in the northeastern part of the continent. Geologically and tectonically, it shares the same lithospheric plate as Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Moreover, the U.S. operates Thule Air Base in Greenland. Now, was there ever anything even remotely comparable in relation to Karabakh or Eastern Zangezur? Even the slightest parallel? Absolutely not.

So why did Denmark never invoke international law when it came to Azerbaijan?

Perhaps they should answer that themselves. As for us, we simply reaffirm that—despite external pressure, distortions, and manipulations—Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity and full sovereignty strictly in accordance with international law!