Denmark and Greenland greet U.S. deal with relief, and caution

As Denmark, Greenland and the United States prepare to sign a new security agreement, politicians, academics and veterans of earlier Greenland negotiations in both Copenhagen and Nuuk have greeted the deal largely with relief, though some remain skeptical of both the agreement and the premise behind it.

The agreement, which U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social on Friday, is expected to be signed Tuesday in New York on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly. Greenland’s Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Trump are expected to meet in connection with the signing.

The text of the agreement has not been made public. According to what has emerged so far, it would bar non-NATO powers from establishing military bases or making strategic investments in Greenland, and would remain in force should Greenland become independent. It builds on the 1951 defense agreement between Denmark and the U.S., which already gives Washington broad latitude to operate militarily on the island.

‘I don’t buy his premise’

Not everyone in Greenland shares the sense of relief. Aaja Chemnitz, who represented Greenland in the Danish parliament for Inuit Ataqatigiit for more than a decade until this year’s election, wrote on Facebook on Monday that the agreement could be “potentially the most important chapter in recent Greenlandic and Danish history.”

“I hope for the best and fear the worst, but it will be fine,” she wrote. “The agreement should benefit Greenland and not sell out either our security or our freedom of action.”

Chemnitz said that beyond handing the Americans the upper hand on military security in Greenland, “which is worrying enough in itself,” she was concerned the deal would give away Greenland’s control over which investments the United States will accept, an apparent reference to the reported provision barring strategic investments by non-NATO powers.

In a post two days earlier, she questioned the rationale behind the deal altogether. “I don’t have much faith in Trump,” she wrote. “And I don’t buy his premise of acute threats in the waters around Greenland. Other than American political threats.”

“The solution for Greenland right now is therefore not more U.S. military presence, but to keep making our economy, welfare and security more robust,” she wrote. While it was good that Greenland’s sovereignty and right to self-determination were being respected, she added, “that ought to be a given.”

She said she was grateful for the work that had gone into the agreement and hoped it would solve many of Greenland’s challenges, but that she would remain skeptical until the text was public, noting that “hope alone is rarely a good strategy.”

“Our country needs human development and economic growth. The two are connected,” she wrote on Monday. “We must strengthen our education much more, so that we do not once again become spectators to development in our own country.”

‘Many winners’

Rasmus Brun Pedersen, an associate professor of international politics at Aarhus University, told Danish broadcaster DR that the deal appears to contain something for each of the three parties.

“I think there are many winners here,” he said. “From a Greenlandic and Danish perspective, it is first and foremost nice that we no longer have to prepare for possibly going to war with the Americans.”

Underlying the deal, he said, is a reaffirmation of the American presence and an expanded role for NATO in the region. From Washington’s perspective, the agreement appears to place Greenland firmly within the U.S. sphere of interest and to keep the island as a key building block of American defense.

Others welcomed the prospect of a larger U.S. footprint. Liberal Alliance leader Alex Vanopslagh, who is currently visiting Greenland, told DR he would support additional U.S. bases on the island.

“I believe it is in both Greenland’s and Denmark’s interest. It will contribute to security in the Arctic,” he said. “If they were to ask for two more bases, I would expect that to be something we view positively.”

Asked about concerns among residents of Narsarsuaq in South Greenland, some of whom fear a base in the area could force them to move, Vanopslagh said he understood the worry. “But it is my clear impression that the Greenlandic government, the Danish government and the American administration will be able to discuss such concerns if talks turn to specific bases,” he said.

‘A gigantic victory’

In an editorial, the Copenhagen daily Politiken called the deal an enormous victory for Greenlandic and Danish diplomacy, describing the crisis as the gravest threat to the territorial integrity of the Danish Realm since World War II.

The paper said the reported provisions on non-NATO powers and on the agreement’s validity after independence were sensible updates to the 1951 agreement, and stressed that neither undermined the integrity of the Realm or Greenlanders’ right to self-determination. It nonetheless cautioned that with Trump, “you should never pop the champagne corks before the ink is dry.”

‘Keep our mouths shut’

Former Danish Foreign Minister Per Stig Møller, who negotiated the 2004 update to the 1951 agreement, urged restraint in the final hours before the signing.

“When Norway negotiated its independence in 1905, Prime Minister Christian Michelsen is said to have remarked in the decisive hours: ‘Now it’s about keeping our mouths shut.’ The same is true right now,” he told the tabloid B.T.

Møller warned that Trump has previously upended seemingly finalized deals at the last minute. “There is still a risk of someone rocking the boat. And when it comes to Trump, sometimes it takes nothing at all,” he said.

He said he could not assess how the new deal differs from the 2004 arrangement, “because right now we only have Trump’s version, and it doesn’t have to be true.” But he praised the Danish government’s approach of setting up a working group and moving the discussions to the civil-servant level. “Right now it looks as if Greenland’s sovereignty is untouched. That is a relief,” he said.

Still, he struck a note of caution. “If we put on the tinfoil hat, it could be that with this agreement the Americans have given up on a sudden, violent takeover of Greenland, but are now attempting a peaceful one,” he said. Denmark, he concluded, needs to stay on its guard.

Hopes for normalization

Kaj Kleist, the longtime former director of Greenland’s Home Rule administration, told Sermitsiaq he hoped the agreement would help restore relations among the three countries.

“I hope the relationship between Denmark, Greenland and the U.S. will be normalized, so to speak, after the ride we’ve been on for the past couple of years, where the American president almost took or annexed Greenland,” he said.

Kleist was head of the Home Rule administration when the 2004 Igaliku Agreement, an addendum to the 1951 defense agreement, was concluded, recognizing Greenland as a partner of the United States. He recalled that communication with the Americans was difficult at the time and the bases were largely closed to the public. The Igaliku deal, secured by then-Greenlandic foreign affairs minister Josef Motzfeldt, was “a big moment, because it was the first time we took part in signing such an agreement on the American bases,” he said.

Kleist said he would reserve further comment until he had seen the agreement, but would be watching closely for the tone it strikes. “We’ll see whether we can get back to ordinary terms with the diplomatic rules we have in the Western world,” he said.