Let's imagine a human invasion: 30,000 Americans arrive in Greenland

Let's imagine that on Monday we wake up with the unusual news that dozens of ships from the United States are sailing to Greenland. They have left different ports in Maine, skirted Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and then sailed up the Labrador Sea. Thousands of American citizens are on board. A North American Coast Guard vessel accompanies them during part of the journey. Washington assures that it is limited to ensuring its safety, although some recordings suggest that there is communication between the ship and the flotilla.

By evening, some 30,000 people have landed in Greenland, many of them in the vicinity of Nuuk. The island has less than 57,000 inhabitants; its capital, about 20,000. Hospitals, accommodations and social services are overwhelmed. There are mainly men, but also entire families, in addition to thousands of minors, many of them unaccompanied children. Donald Trump appears that same afternoon to deny his government's involvement, but once again highlights the importance of controlling Greenland and insists on the historical rights of the United States over the island.

The European Union is deeply concerned and the Danish government meets urgently (its president even interrupts her vacation) to deal with the crisis. What should you do? Because the people who have just landed on its shores are human beings. Many request asylum. They say they are escaping from a country in which the poor lack opportunities and access to basic services. There are sick, homeless, and fentanyl addicts seeking treatment. And there are the children. Thirty thousand people do not stop having rights because their arrival fits with Washington's expansionist delusions.

But Copenhagen knows that this is more than just a migration crisis. During the trip, images have appeared of alleged plainclothes US agents giving instructions to some groups. The Coast Guard knew the route. And it is difficult to believe that 30,000 people have crossed the North Atlantic in coordination without the knowledge of their government.

The 30,000 disembarked are not exactly human shields. They are anchors. Human anchors. Vulnerable people used to establish a foothold on desired land. A massive presence that creates a new reality that will be politically, legally and morally complex to reverse.

This is just a thought experiment. I leave you to guess how those who applaud the government today would react in a similar situation. Would you dare to talk about something other than a humanitarian crisis? Would they be as magnanimous with Donald Trump as they are with Mohamed VI?

Just war theory distinguishes between combatants and civilians. Whoever does not participate in hostilities retains his immunity even if his presence benefits the enemy. But what happens when that presence is the instrument chosen to conquer territory? The new arrivals would still be civilians, vulnerable people to protect, but they would be performing the strategic function for which soldiers were previously needed. The Green March is not that far away either.

Can there then be an invasion without invaders? A conquest in which those who occupy the territory are not combatants, but rather people whom the attacked State has the obligation to protect? And, above all, shouldn't our response be the same if we were talking about Ceuta or Greenland?