Denmark’s diplomatic victory in Greenland

The agreement made public on 22 September on the future of the United States military presence in Greenland is a significant accomplishment for Danish and Greenlandic diplomacy in wake of a volatile period in relations with the US. The deal, which updates a 1951 US-Denmark agreement, should dial down tensions over US national security concerns pertaining to Greenland, while giving President Donald Trump just enough to also claim victory.

Substantively, the new agreement entrenches the status quo. The US is now permitted explicitly (Article IV of the deal) to modernise and expand its Pituffik Space Base in north-west Greenland and to establish new bases at Narsarsuaq and Mestervig. Further US bases in Greenland could follow, subject to mutual agreement. This justifies the US claim that it can now expand its presence in Greenland – though this option was already available in the 1951 treaty.

The new agreement also forbids explicitly the establishment of military installations in Greenland by any non-NATO country (Article IX). Again, this was already in the 1951 treaty and in any case, there is virtually no chance that Denmark and Greenland would allow such bases to be established.

The agreement (Article X) also includes investment restrictions primarily targeted at China and Russia. It states that, for national security reasons, investment is barred from non-NATO and non-NATO partner countries unless the US, Denmark and Greenland agree that “the activities of such states or investors would not constitute a threat to national security or public order”. Crucially, at this point, NATO’s partnerships with Afghanistan, Belarus and Russia are suspended.

However, the investment restrictions do not cover all authoritarian states. Several non-democratic Middle Eastern and former Soviet republics are included among the NATO partners, a designation that covers more than 30 countries. From a national security point of view, the agreement thus requires Denmark and Greenland to continue policing inward foreign direct investment, as some non-democratic states will still be able to invest in Greenland.

Lastly, the new agreement has no end date and includes clauses on Greenlandic independence, should it happen. Article XI states that a future independent Greenland should stay tied to NATO and must “affirmatively assume, as from the date of independence, all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement, including any implementation agreements or arrangements between the Parties, as well as the Defense Arrangements”. This boosts President Trump’s claim that the US base rights in Greenland have now, under virtually all plausible scenarios, been made permanent.

In effect, therefore, the new treaty binds a possible future independent Greenland to hosting US military bases and maintaining the military alliance with the US. Combined with the similarly perpetual inability of, for instance, China to establish military facilities and make significant economic investments in Greenland, the new agreement greatly narrows the political options for geopolitical realignment available to an independent Greenlandic state.

This outcome likely pleases the Danish government and the current Greenlandic government, which is very lukewarm on independence. The provisions effectively undermine at least part of the political and economic case for Greenlandic independence.

This doesn’t make it impossible that an independent Greenland might one day emerge with the blessings of both the Danish and Greenlandic populations. But given that more than half of Greenland’s public sector income today comes in the form of an annual fiscal transfer from Denmark, it seems clear that any permanent restrictions on the political freedom of action of a new independent state may lead some in Greenland to question the wisdom of pursuing independence.

Ironically, therefore it seems likely that Donald Trump’s initial demands for the US to ‘own Greenland’ have instead, with the signing of this agreement, solidified the political and fiscal union between Denmark and Greenland.