Danish commentators on Saturday described a deal announced by U.S. President Donald Trump over Greenland’s security as a diplomatic win for Copenhagen, despite Trump presenting the agreement as a major triumph for Washington.
Since returning to the White House last January, Trump has repeatedly argued that the United States needs Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, for strategic reasons. His demands triggered months of tension with NATO ally Denmark and generated concern across Europe over the future of the strategically important Arctic territory.
Trump said on Friday that the United States, Denmark and Greenland had reached an agreement giving Washington permanent control over Greenland’s security while preventing Russia and China from establishing bases there. The precise terms of the agreement remain unclear, however, while Denmark maintains that the deal does not affect its sovereignty.
Both sides welcomed the agreement and said they would sign it on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this week. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said the agreement could replace a prolonged period of uncertainty with a binding arrangement intended to strengthen security in the Arctic and North Atlantic. He said the deal respected Denmark’s “red lines” and was important given the changed security situation.
Trump described the agreement as “a dream come true for the United States of America”. Danish commentators, however, quickly questioned whether Washington had actually secured significant new concessions.
“Shhh. Don’t tell Trump that it’s the Kingdom of Denmark that has prevailed,” U.S. correspondent Jacob Heinel Jensen wrote in the Danish newspaper Berlingske. He argued that the “craziest thing” was that ministers, diplomats and civil servants had managed to present the agreement to Trump as a major personal triumph.
Commentators also noted that the United States already possessed significant scope to expand its military presence in Greenland under a 1951 defence pact, updated in 2004, provided Washington informed Denmark and Greenland in advance. During the Cold War, the United States maintained as many as 25,000 troops and 17 military bases on the island.
Marc Jacobsen, a researcher at the Royal Danish Defence College, said the agreement appeared, based on what was publicly known, to offer something to all three parties. Trump could present himself as a winner, while Denmark could maintain its position as a partner to both Greenland and the United States. Greenland, meanwhile, could potentially receive additional economic compensation connected to an expanded U.S. military presence.
Jacobsen also argued that Trump had little incentive to prolong the dispute, particularly amid an unpopular war with Iran and a trade war with Canada. He said Trump had “no need to open yet another front against Greenland, and possibly a trade war with the EU”.
Torsten Jansen, a U.S. commentator for broadcaster TV2, offered a sharply different interpretation. Although Trump was presenting the agreement as a victory, Jansen said he did not appear to have secured anything that could not likely have been achieved through conventional diplomacy. “Even though Trump is trying to blare it out as a victory, it is, as I see it, a spectacular defeat,” Jansen said, according to TV2.
Jacobsen said the agreement appeared to remove discussion of U.S. annexation of Greenland from the immediate agenda, but added that Trump’s description suggested it might not significantly alter conditions on the ground. Denmark had already prevented a Chinese company from purchasing a former military base in Greenland in 2016, while the new agreement’s restrictions on Chinese and Russian bases would reinforce an existing strategic position.
For residents in Copenhagen, the prospect of an end to the dispute may itself be significant. Kathrine Rasmussen, a 47-year-old lawyer, said she hoped the agreement would finally allow the issue to be put to rest. “It would be nice if we could end these discussions. At least that would be a good outcome, so we can move on,” she said.
