New Delhi: One question returns again and again in world politics: Does the desire to live in peace give the powerful the freedom to attack? History shows that not every civilization likes war. Some societies make their identity with the sword, and some with their inner power of discipline. But when the outside world is cruel, remaining calm is no longer a moral choice, but sometimes becomes a strategic mistake. Tibet is the most painful example of this. This was a civilization that for centuries tried to make itself great through spiritual discipline, compassion and self-control. He considered military expansion inferior. But the problem was not that Tibet was peaceful. The problem was that Tibet assumed that peace would keep it safe. Now the same fear is emerging about Greenland. The world’s largest island, whose population is only around 57 thousand, is today becoming a ‘strategic trophy’ in the eyes of the superpowers.

Greenland’s Minister Naja Nathanielsen, writing in the New York Times, said very poignantly that it is a privilege to live in Greenland, but one thing we do not have is the strength of numbers. He says that 57 thousand people America Can fit into one stadium and still seats will remain empty. For this reason, some Americans find it difficult to accept how a society with such a small population can have control over such a vast land. And this thinking is most dangerous when big countries start challenging the sovereignty of small nations through ‘argument’.

Why is the crisis on Greenland’s peace increasing?

Greenland now stands at a crossroads where the choices before it are stark:

  • or he will be ‘sold’
  • Or it will be ‘acquired’

The difference is only the method, not the result.

According to Reuters report, US President Donald Trump again raised concerns regarding Greenland. aggressive stance Has adopted and said that America will not ‘back down’ from its objective and if necessary, force can also be used. This issue has affected the relations between Europe and America. increased tension And has also put pressure on systems like NATO.
Europe is considering this pressure as blackmailing. According to the Guardian report, Trump is talking about ‘complete control over Greenland’ and some countries. Tariff There has even been discussion of threats.

Denmark has clearly stated that Greenland cannot be ‘acquired’ by any capital power or military pressure. But meanwhile there is another truth: Greenland’s loneliness. It may be autonomous, but it is not a completely independent nation. Denmark has a role in its security, foreign policy and many strategic decisions. For this reason, the island often becomes a weak link in the ‘deal-making’ of big powers.

The Battle of Greenland: When Strategy, Resources and Geography Meet Greed

The importance of Greenland is not just the land. It is the center of three major battles of today:

  • arctic control

Increasing activity, sea routes and military deployment in the Arctic.

  • Minerals and Energy

Resources related to rare minerals, energy and future technology.

  • geostrategic location
Russia, Europe Greenland can become a kind of ‘forward base’ between India and North America. That means Greenland’s ‘keeping calm’ is no longer bringing it peace. Rather, peace has made it the biggest topic of discussion.

Will Greenland also pay the ‘price of peace’ like Tibet?

This comparison is not completely similar, but the signs are scary. Tibet also saw itself as a ‘model of peace’. Tibet’s polity was not a modern democracy, but its political-social character was unusual: a system where spiritual legitimacy and political power went hand in hand.

Tibet’s ‘greatness’ was not achieved by war. She was made:

  • by monastic discipline
  • considering compassion as policy
  • Considering spiritual progress as the national objective

This was his identity. And this is his weakness also.

Why did Tibet take external power lightly?

It would be wrong to say that Tibet was unaware of violence. Like every society, it also had conflicts, conspiracies and power struggles. But militarism gradually came to be considered a ‘low level’ thing in Tibetan political culture. When a society devotes a large part of its energy to building internal power, attention is reduced to border security, military logistics and deterrence. This is what happened. And then comes that moment in history, when the outside world says: Compassion is good, but you are weak.

  • 1950: When war surrounded a society that was not made for war
in the 1950s China The People’s Liberation Army entered Eastern Tibet. This was not an equal fight. Tibet could not stand against the modern war machine.

In 1951, Tibetan representatives signed the ‘Seventeen Point Agreement’ in Beijing, which China calls ‘Peaceful Liberation’. But according to many historians and institutions, this agreement was made under pressure and military compulsion. In the ‘Origins’ project of Ohio State University, it has been described as ‘Sign under Duress’.

It is also mentioned in many sources including Wikipedia that the Tibetan representatives did not have the full approval of Lhasa and the signing took place under duress. The truth here is very simple that when a nation stands before modern military power and does not have deterrence, its moral values ​​cannot shield it.

  • 1959: The year of rupture and endless exile

In 1959, a rebellion broke out in Lhasa. Thousands of people gathered around the Dalai Lama’s palace. The fear was that they would be kidnapped or forced. The conflict escalated and eventually the Dalai Lama came to India. The exile was not just of an individual, but of the political future of a civilization.

The defeat of Tibet was not just a loss of land. It was the collapse of an entire psychological world. From one day onwards, Tibetan society was no longer the author of its own story, it became the listener of its own story.

What did Tibet lose? Not just limits, but also confidence

Tibet lost:

  • confidence in our sovereignty
  • rights of one’s own institutions
  • Smooth flow of culture (language, customs, traditions)
  • guarantee of future

And the biggest thing: the feeling that tomorrow will also be ‘Tibetan’ as it was yesterday. The irony is that Tibet tried to avoid violence and that same violence became its permanent rule.

What should Greenland learn from Tibet?

The story of Tibet does not say that peace is useless. It says that peace is incomplete if it is not guarded. The biggest threat to Greenland is not that it will be attacked. The biggest danger is that big countries assume that:

  • He is not capable of taking decisions himself
  • He is not ‘entitled’ to such a large land
  • He can be ‘transferred’ in exchange for any security guarantee

That means after a while the issue ceases to be moot. The issue becomes legality.

It is not necessary for Greenland to become Tibet, because the power of Denmark and Europe is behind it. But this will remain true only if Europe remains united. If the rift in transatlantic relations widens, and Greenland becomes a ‘bargain’ in the US-Europe bargain, the danger lies with many fold Will increase.

Does peace call for war? this is the real answer

Peace in itself is not weakness. Weakness is created when peace is seen as an alternative to ‘strategy’. The law of the world is very harsh: Only one who understands the language of strength respects peace. And only he who knows the ‘price’ understands the language of strength. Tibet made peace a principle, but did not make deterrence. Greenland faces the same test today. If it leaves its political-strategic position to ‘moral appeal’, it may become as helpless as Tibet was.



Source link