Despite public opposition, the Danish government is poised to pass a defense cooperation agreement with the United States before the summer break. The deal, which is irrevocable for ten years, grants the U.S. military “unhindered access” to three air bases in Denmark.
The Proposed Agreement
In a move that has sparked significant public dissent, the Danish government plans to advance legislation that would permit the permanent stationing of U.S. troops and military equipment in Denmark. This action is tied to a defense cooperation agreement previously made with the U.S. in December 2023. A recent poll conducted by Epinion for DR revealed that 43 percent of Danes oppose the proposed legislation, while only 28 percent support it. The legislation is scheduled for its first parliamentary reading in the Danish Parliament on April 11, with hopes of a final vote before the summer recess.
Key Aspects of the Defense Agreement
The defense cooperation agreement, which extends for ten years without an option for termination, is designed to allow the U.S. military extensive operational capabilities within Denmark. This includes conducting a variety of military activities from Danish soil such as troop deployments, storage of military equipment, maintenance, training, and various exercises. The agreement specifically grants the U.S. military unrestricted access to three military air bases located in Karup, Skrydstrup, and Aalborg.
A significant concern among the populace arises not only from the nature of military presence but also from the current geopolitical climate. With the advent of new U.S. leadership, many in Denmark feel uneasy about further entrenching military ties, especially in light of President Donald Trump’s recent overtures toward Greenland and other geopolitical maneuvers.
Public Sentiment and Concerns
The overwhelming skepticism from the Danish public highlights the divisions that the proposed agreement has caused. Residents, especially those living near the designated military sites, express their concerns in various ways. For instance, Hanne Petersen, a retiree living near Flyvestation Skrydstrup, who had initially been indifferent to the agreement, now articulates a distinct disapproval. “I think my own grandchild behaves better than the U.S. president. We have family scars from World War II, and I feel there’s a hint of Hitler in some of the recent rhetoric from leaders,” she explained.
Similarly, Sara Felber, a temporary worker at a housing facility and a school, expressed her unease by stating, “I boycott American goods. My family in the U.S. are a bit nervous and are organizing protests.” The sentiment of unease is not isolated; it is echoed by many who view the potential for a U.S. troop presence as unsettling amid global tensions.
In contrast, some see the agreement as economically beneficial. Claus Jacobsen, a project manager at VVS Søberg, believes the military presence could lead to job creation. “We’ll have a lot of repairs to make,” he noted, but he also criticized the timing of the agreement amidst rising skepticism.
The Legislative Process Ahead
As the Folketing session approaches, defense minister Troels Lund Poulsen (V) acknowledged the skepticism among the Danish public, attributing it to the prevailing international situation. However, he is hopeful and remains committed to facilitating the passage of the agreement. “I don’t believe it is in Denmark’s interest to withdraw from an agreement we have made. On the contrary, we should do what we can to maintain a U.S. arrangement in Europe, as it serves both Denmark’s and Europe’s interests,” he insisted.
The government faces challenges not only from public sentiment but also from political opposition. Currently, only the Socialist People’s Party (SF) has expressed support for the agreement, with the far-left parties—Unity List and Alternative—fiercely opposing it. This division within Danish politics could complicate the legislative process, with calls from several parties to postpone the vote until clearer public consensus emerges.
The Broader Implications of U.S. Military Presence
The implications of allowing a U.S. military presence in Denmark are multifaceted. On one side, defense advocates point out that such agreements strengthen European military cooperation and could aid in regional security efforts against potential threats from nations like Russia. Similar agreements have been established by the U.S. with other countries in Eastern Europe, such as Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Poland, the Czech Republic, Sweden, and Finland.
Yet, the presence of foreign troops also raises questions of sovereignty and local governance. Under the proposed framework, American soldiers would remain under U.S. jurisdiction, meaning any legal issues arising from their conduct would principally be handled by U.S. authorities rather than Danish courts. This raises fears among some Danes about accountability and the potential for friction between local laws and military protocol.
As Denmark grapples with this defense agreement, the public’s concerns, political dynamics, and the implications of U.S. military presence reveal a complex landscape. The government’s intention to push through the legislation despite significant public opposition underscores the challenges of balancing national defense requirements with the sentiments of the citizens. As the potential vote looms on April 11, the outcome will certainly have lasting effects on Denmark’s military stance and its relationship with the United States over the next decade. Whether the agreement will ultimately be passed or postponed remains to be seen, but it is clear that the discussions surrounding this defense deal are far from settled.
