MP’s are calling for a closed parliamentary hearing on Denmark’s defense agreement with the U.S., which allows American soldiers to be stationed on Danish soil. Concerns center on jurisdiction and transparency, as U.S. troops would not be subject to Danish law.
Growing Criticism and Proposed Hearing
In recent discussions regarding a defense agreement between Denmark and the United States, critics have raised significant concerns about the implications of American soldiers being stationed in Danish towns. Leading figures from the Socialist People’s Party (SF) and the Social Democrats have called for a closed hearing to address the details of this agreement behind closed doors.
The defense deal, which grants U.S. soldiers access to military bases in three towns in Jutland, has ignited controversy due to its provisions that give extensive powers to American military personnel. Under the agreement, soldiers are not subject to Danish jurisdiction, meaning they would primarily be tried in the American legal system for any crimes committed while in Denmark. The agreement, first introduced in the Danish Parliament and expected to be adopted on June 11, has faced backlash over potential implications for civilian oversight and accountability.
Lawmakers such as Anne Valentina Berthelsen from SF and Simon Kollerup from the Social Democrats believe deeper scrutiny is needed. They advocate for a confidential session to ensure that sensitive information can be shared safely. Kollerup articulated, “If the Parliament is to receive adequate information on an issue as sensitive and crucial for Denmark’s security as the cooperation agreement with the U.S., it is essential to have access to data that may be classified and confidential.”
Despite the insistences for transparency, Kollerup highlighted the need for discretion within defense matters, acknowledging that “certain aspects must be handled with a degree of confidentiality” due to their sensitive nature.
Key Aspects of the Agreement
Signed in December 2023, the agreement facilitates various U.S. military operations from Danish soil, including personnel deployment, military equipment storage, maintenance, training, and exercise activities. It specifically enables the American military straightforward access to designated military areas in Denmark, notably at the airbases in Karup, Skrydstrup, and Aalborg. The agreement is irrevocable for ten years, and similar arrangements have been made with several other countries, including Norway, Poland, and Bulgaria.
Opposition to Closed Hearings
The demand for a closed hearing has sparked significant debate within the Danish Parliament. Critics, including members from the Red-Green Alliance, the Alternative Party, and independent MP Theresa Scavenius, argue for an open hearing. They contend that transparency is crucial to fostering a healthy public discourse regarding the legal and ethical ramifications of the U.S. military presence in Denmark. Scavenius asserted, “A hearing should illuminate the issues for Members of Parliament while also generating public debate so that citizens are informed.”
The Democratic stance on transparency is echoed by Rasmus Jarlov, the chairman of the Defense Committee, who has expressed concerns about the democratic integrity of restricting access to information.
As the debate continues, the balance between national security and public accountability remains a contentious issue within Danish politics. With the upcoming hearing in the Defense Committee set to decide on the closed versus open format, the future of American military presence in Denmark and its implications remain a focal point for lawmakers and citizens alike. Decisions made in this regard will likely shape U.S.-Danish relations and broader security dynamics in Europe. The Parliament’s final decision on the matter is expected to provide clearer insights into the structure and safety of this extensive military agreement.
