Trump’s Greenland deal: A triumph of optics?

The new agreement between the United States, Denmark and Greenland on the security of the Danish autonomous territory appears to be good news. It may finally put an end to nearly two years of repeated intimidation of Greenlanders by Washington and ensure that the stated red lines on territorial integrity and sovereignty are not crossed.

We still do not know exactly what the agreement contains, but the emerging picture is close to a best-case scenario for Denmark and Greenland. The dispute appears to have been moved back onto the diplomatic playing field, where questions of international law, investment and security policy can be handled.

At the same time, US President Donald Trump can present himself as a winner to his supporters, which was necessary to de-escalate tensions. His political allies and aligned media outlets are already praising his negotiating strategy, arguing that sustained pressure worked and left the US better placed to expand its military presence in Greenland — an area that is, admittedly, vital to US national security.

But there is a catch: much of this was already possible under the existing 1951 defence agreement, which was updated in 2004 with Greenland’s Home Rule Government as a party. It gave the US extensive military rights, which Washington made considerable use of during the Cold War, when it maintained 17 military installations and more than 10,000 personnel in Greenland. Today, only Pituffik Space Base remains, with about 150 US military personnel.

There may be at least two changes introduced by the new agreement, if we are to take at face value Trump’s statement posted on Truth Social on September 19.

First, the US president wrote that the deal is an “‘Infinite Life’ Agreement, there is no end!” By comparison, the original agreement stated that it “shall remain in effect for the duration of the North Atlantic Treaty”. In other words, it was tied to NATO’s continued existence.

The new agreement may not be, which could be seen as a consequence of Trump’s limited commitment to NATO and his persistent insistence on “America First”.

Second, the US president wrote: “No U.S. adversary can EVER have a base in Greenland, have a military presence in Greenland, or make sensitive investments in Greenland without our express written approval.” In other words, the US would appear to have gained a formal veto power that could block adversarial countries – such as Russia and China – from seeking to establish a foothold in Greenland. Examples from recent years suggest, however, that this was already largely the case in practice.