Three Danish security policy experts say the new agreement between Denmark, Greenland and the United States is close to the best outcome that could have been expected.
The deal was signed on Tuesday, September 22, by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, Naalakkersuisut chairman Jens-Frederik Nielsen and U.S. President Donald Trump in New York. Information reports that three experts agree with Nielsen, who called it a win for all three parties.
Marc Jacobsen, associate professor at the Royal Danish Defence College, described it as the best result that could be hoped for. According to him, the concessions to the United States beyond the existing 1951 defense agreement have been kept limited.
Rasmus Sinding Søndergaard, senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, said he understands the satisfaction in both Copenhagen and Nuuk. Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, professor of political science at the University of Copenhagen, called it the best possible agreement.
The text reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark. Per Jacobsen, the main gain for Greenland is that the existential threat has been removed from the table.
Reuters reports that the agreement builds on the 1951 accord and allows the United States to establish military facilities at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig, while expanding the existing Pituffik Space Base. It respects Greenland’s right to self-determination and sets out no troop numbers or timetable.
Investment clause draws attention
One new section covers foreign investment in Greenland. Investments from countries outside the EU and NATO must be assessed by all three parties as not posing a security risk, Information reports.
Vedby Rasmussen said this can be read as a form of U.S. veto over such investments. Jacobsen called it the largest concession from the Greenlandic side, while noting that the wording in the section is loose.
Søndergaard said a concern before the signing was whether the restriction would also cover EU and NATO countries. As he noted, the text explicitly excludes them, and China and Russia are not named but are what the clause addresses in practice.
Both Søndergaard and Vedby Rasmussen said it would be naive to rule out that Trump changes position later. Vedby Rasmussen pointed to the possibility of sharper rhetoric after the U.S. midterm elections in November.
Jacobsen said Trump can use the agreement to close a conflict and present a foreign policy win before that vote. DR has published an overview identifying the two additional U.S. defense areas at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig.
According to a statement from Statsministeriet, the agreement must pass the necessary parliamentary procedures before it enters into force.
