"what the new Greenland agreement changes" Topic

from Powerline blog

Ok, we now have the actual text of the Greenland deal ( link ), so we can say how it compares to the existing 1951 arrangement and who, between Trump and Denmark, lied the most in their framing of it.

Long story short – which may surprise some – the Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland.

Let's look into what changed compared to the 1951 deal.

1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one "does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent."

It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state "affirmatively assume[s] all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement."

2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can "modernize and expand its activities" at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and "shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig." Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of "the American continent," a US interest rather than a NATO one.

Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that "the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland" and that consultations are then held "to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement." What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement.

Article VII also gives the US "the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use" of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases.

3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny.

The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US "may enjoy… the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea," but only "in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland."

The new one says: "the United States of America shall enjoy… the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea."

That's it: "May" becomes "shall," and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules "issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland." The US also gets something new on top: "undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters," i.e. submarines.

4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause.

5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. "States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state" (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), "shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information…within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties."

Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned.

6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US.

The 1951 agreement existed only "for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." The new one lists the defense of "the American continent" as an objective, celebrates "the irreplaceable role" of the United States military as well as "the United States' indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland," and names the establishment of Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense system as a key goal.

So, to sum up:

– The US secured a permanent military foothold that even an independent Greenland would inherit whether it likes it or not
– The US now has veto power over any non-NATO military presence in Greenland, and over who can invest in its strategic infrastructure and resources (beyond NATO and the EU)
– Denmark signed away its say over the principle of new US bases, with only the right to discuss the "implementation details"
– Danish authorities no longer set the rules for US military movement across the island
– And all of it is now justified by the defense of "the American continent"

I don't know in which universe this even remotely "recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination," as Danish PM Mette Frederiksen put it (https://stm.dk/en/press/press-releases/expected-agreement-on-strengthened-security-in-the-arctic-and-the-north-atlantic-area).

Yes, the preamble of the text cynically "reaffirms" Danish sovereignty but, in my book, when you let a foreign country put bases on your soil, move its troops without following your rules and veto who else can come in, in perpetuity, after it spent two years threatening to take you by force, the word for that is anything but "recognized sovereignty"

Yes, we now have veto power over our enemies being there.

We have already announced 2 new bases:

New Locations: One base will be located in Narsarsuaq on the southern tip of the island (the former Cold War-era Bluie West One site), and the second will be in Mestersvig on the east coast (currently an outpost used by the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol)

Newsweek

What other non NATO countries have military bases in a NATO country?
Why on earth would Russia get a base in a NATO country? Why would China?
Gloating over preventing something that wasn't going to happen is just coming across as desperate.

Plenty of Chinese attempts to develop projects in Greenland have already been rebuffed on national security grounds prior to this agreement.

link

Rebuffed only by ACTIVE US attention under the TRUMP admin – from your article, "In 2018, a Chinese state-owned company tried to invest in upgrading and expanding a network of Greenlandic airports, but the business bid was stopped, reportedly with US influence."

Trump wanted to eliminate the guesswork and outside pressure and formalize locking adversaries out of Greenland.

The treaty certainly gives Washington much greater and more permanent control over military/security matters than the 1951 arrangement did.

But "control over security interests" ≠ "control of Greenland."

The latter would imply sovereignty or something approaching it. The treaty does not do that.

In fact, Greenland's own prime minister signed it and explicitly said the agreement recognizes Greenland as a people with a right to self-determination. Denmark likewise says the agreement respects sovereignty and territorial integrity.

I'm sure the Greenlanders will appreciate the huge number of US dollars spent in their country.

I doubt anyone is DC wants to try to rule Greenland. Even if they were to come in as a new state that would remain true. We have a federal system. But they are now an American protectorate. And yes, they will thrive economically.

I thought a bit of academic rigour would be appropriate here; not just Washington Bombast.

Greenland remains under Danish sovereignty and the agreement explicitly recognizes its right to self-determination. "Protectorate" carries a fairly specific implication of subordinated sovereignty that the treaty doesn't formally establish.

As for the economic future, that's certainly possible, particularly if the new security arrangements encourage investment, infrastructure and resource development. But I'd regard that as a potential consequence rather than something the agreement itself guarantees.

Oh for goodness sakes, what did China get in any other year Trump wasn't in office? What foreign military bases were built in Greenland when Trump wasn't in office?
Greenland was always under the NATO umbrella it's not a US protectorate now because of this agreement.
An agreement that can be changed in the future by mutual agreement which could happen after Trump leaves office.

"I think" and "I thought" are just that, your opinions.

Doc stated the facts of the agreement and showed the differences, old and new.

I could say: "I think it's a good agreement", but that would just be my opinion.

Doc, anything you saw on rare earth resources?

Maybe we can build a "base" over some. 🤔😉

So it came down to an agreement. It wasn't the catastrophic invasion that so many of you predicted previously. War between the U.S. and NATO. On to Iceland… The UK and then western Europe… meeting his old buddy Putin in the middle! 😱😏

Should we go back and find your previous "Greenland, Cuban, Venezuelan, Canadian… posts?"

It's is how he negotiates. Dislike it or not.

I'm not sure exactly how "…the Danes lied the most…".

Here is an article that has a brief summary of the major improvements the new agreement provides.:
link

So the deal is permanent. I give it six months before the US wants to renegotiate.

Gunboat diplomacy….

Those who disagree.

How would you have had handled it and "guaranteed" the same results?

"Guarantee" being the key word.

Secondly answer why Greenland is "now" so important to US security? Not interested in answers from Europe.

Thirdly, if you can, tell us how this all falls into the whole strategy of other demands of this regime in the Americas since the last election? Why those demands?

Start with Panama.

Greenland already covered under NATO agreement not about to host any hostile military bases.
Easy way to guarantee Greenland's defense is for the US to adhere to the NATO treaty.
Us military is already there a conversation about increasing basing would have been successful given the investment it provides.
Other investment for mineral extraction would be on competitive tender. Obviously a thing going forward for extraction as world demand increases.

Easy to see what the President iis up to as he cares more about profit than anything else. The reason Panama is of interest is to control the canal for profit. All his conversations are about how the US is ripped off and how people should pony up.

Thanks for doing all this analysis!

It's is how he negotiates. Dislike it or not.

So the strongest country in the world threatens to take over one of the weakest countries in the world simply as a negotiation ploy.

What's to like about that ?

So prove those Kiltboy, with actual facts. Obviously you can't because it is all speculation that it "could have been" or "might be". Can't prove what never happened.

And your analysis of what is happening and why just being profit, are very much off.

The sad part is that others such as SB have explained the reasons before, backed with evidence.

Panama, Venezuela, Greenland, areas of South America… Even Canada have very legitimate common purposes. Oil just being one.

He did make a big mistake with Canada. He could have gotten a conservative PM, but said too much and blew it and got the C man instead.

This gets so little play:

Key Rightward Shifts
* 🇦🇷 Argentina: Elected libertarian Javier Milei in 2023, focusing on sweeping state reductions.
*
* 🇪🇨 Ecuador: Chosen business-friendly President Daniel Noboa.
*
* 🇨🇱 Chile: Elected conservative José Antonio Kast.
*
* 🇧🇴 Bolivia: Ended long-term socialist rule with the election of Rodrigo Paz.
*
* 🇵🇪 Peru & 🇨🇴 Colombia: Recently saw victories for conservative figures like Keiko Fujimori and Abelardo de la Espriella. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
*

35 Greenland gets attacked and invokes article 5. Are you saying the US response would now be different vs last week?
35th name a NATO country with a Russian or Chinese military base. Show me that fact if you could.

I am actually quoting the President's comments to you when he says the US is getting ripped off.

Live in a dreamworld if you so choose.

I am asking you to "prove" the United States could have gotten this agreement before.

The answer is: you can't. No one can. It is all pie in the sky supposition.

But would obviously "did not" have it before… as docs post proves.

Secondly there is a strategy going on, much as those who so dislike him will admit and it is working.

Article 5??

The bases have to do with the hemisphere WE reside in. North, South and Central America… and yes, our enemies were trying. He and his strategies look at Greenland as it pertains to this hemisphere, not as NATO..

Desolate Arctic Outposts likely to host US Troops under new Greenland Deal

link

Armand

"Yes, the preamble of the text cynically "reaffirms" Danish sovereignty but, in my book, when you let a foreign country put bases on your soil, move its troops without following your rules and veto who else can come in, in perpetuity, after it spent two years threatening to take you by force, the word for that is anything but "recognized sovereignty" "

It took me a while to actually read that paragraph, doc, but what you are saying there is that the US has successfully invaded and taken control of Greenland ?

you are saying there is that the US has successfully invaded and taken control of Greenland ?

No -- that was always trollery, pure and simple. You'd think by now you'd understand Trump's MOS.

1. He's always cordial or friendly when he wants a deal

2. He responds in kind based on the other party -- are you civil? He will be civil. Are you insulting? He will be more insulting.

3. He uses outrageous claims or the "big ask" to frame the debate and provoke the other party to commit to a position. After polite prodding failed, "Maybe we'll just take Greenland, we should have it, you're not paying attention to it, you're harming our security."

4. The other side reacts as it reacts and Trump usually gets the reaction he wants -- outrage, tipping their hand in response…accepting HIS upper limit to the deal.

5. What follows is tacking back and forth, flame wars, talking, more tacking back and forth and then the REAL DEAL he wanted, which makes the other side feel like it's achieved some sort of victory because Trump "didn't get his way"… except that he did.

*He wanted Denmark to commit more resources to Greenland security -- and now it has.

*He wanted adversary powers locked out of Greenland's resources and infrastructre -- and now they are locked out.

*He wanted more US bases and long term basing rights – and how he has.

*He wanted Greenland's self-determination to be explicitly placed on the table -- and now it has.

Grok it yet?

SB I can present the Strategy that the administration is pursuing. So many see Panama, Cuba, Greenland, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada and elsewhere in N, C and South America, as disconnected and disjointed, Shotgun spray so to speak.

It obviously is anything but and is actually working and coming together.

I was hoping someone would state it here, but sadly emotions seem to win out.

You have expressed it in other posts. I have it written up. But I'm still hoping someone will do it first.

Even Iran, the ME and Africa are involved to an extent.

Making the Greenland Agreement Work: Building Distributed Arctic Deterrence

link

Armand

35th, yes, someday someone will do a great book on Trump's grand strategy.

on rare earth minerals: link

Yes doc, minerals are one part of the overall strategy, especially rare earth and oil and especially in our hemisphere.

Yep, the US is coordinating up to $12 USD Billion to help develop South American resources industries in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru and more… potash… cobalt… copper…oil and gas…rare earths and lithium…and infrastructure that supports U.S. supply chains and exports like rebuilding Venezuela's oil industry, building a deep water port in Guyana that can support LNG tankers..enhanced rail…

So there's a grand strategy that involves creating a Western Hemisphere supply chain and trading structure with the US at the center. This doesn't get as much play because normal diplomacy is working and Trump isn't issuing tweets.

SBS, to some extent you are drawing the target around the arrow again. Greenland self determination? Since when was that in the US agenda ?

Trump has often been the first to start the insults. And then act surprised when allies lose their enthusiasm for following his mad ideas.

Subject: Greenland rare earth minerals and oil drive Trump's security deal


link

SBS, to some extent you are drawing the target around the arrow again. Greenland self determination? Since when was that in the US agenda ?

We will agree to disagree – an independent Greenland would be separated from Denmark and in that process could choose to become a US Territory with large autonomy and the benefits of being in the American system.

We will agree to disagree – an independent Greenland would be separated from Denmark and in that process could choose to become a US Territory with large autonomy and the benefits of being in the American system.

Like American Samoa, Guam, the North Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands?

Lucky Greenland…..

It is an advantageous Treaty for the U.S. The President made it happen. Just admit it is and be done with it.

Deleted above, had nothing to do with Greenland

Why would Greenland want to be a US territory? The benefits of being in the Denmark system are many for them, including rights that allow them to protect their natural resources and protect them from investors with eco-destructive agendas. They control their own internal affairs, they have full access to Danish healthcare and public services. They avoid becoming part of an endless political uncivil war.

Maybe instead, a "beloved 51st State" instead?

Better hurry Canada, 51st could be slipping by quickly. 😂

The people of Greenland have overwhelmlying said they do not want to become part of the US. Or don't we give a crap what they say?

Grattan

This is all hyperbole talk. But people never fail to take it seriously and go into immediate outrage mode. Has not stopped in 6 years, I'm sure it won't in the next 2. Just "Genned outrage".

Be a new one tomorrow.

I will say, the auks and musk ox have overwhelmingly demanded 51st Statehood. The Auks are in the millions. Only 20,000 musk ox.

Grattan

This is all hyperbole talk. But people never fail to take it seriously and go into immediate outrage mode.

Yep, funny that -- Trump met his access and security goals in Greenland in a deal, and Trollery was a key TACTIC… that worked…

In the official press release from the Danish Prime Minister's Office, she stated:"Today, we have signed a good agreement. For Greenland, the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States. And for NATO and Europe. The agreement strengthens our common defence and security. And it is deeply rooted in the NATO Alliance. The agreement acknowledges and respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination."

At the signing ceremony, she expanded on this, calling it a milestone that updates and improves on the 1951 defence agreement:It is "an even bigger and better agreement, a deal that can last forever."
"This deal is good for the United States, it's good for Greenland, for Denmark, for the NATO alliance, and therefore also good for Europe."
It strengthens common security and deterrence, ensures adversaries will not gain "any control or significant influence in Greenland," and increases the presence of allies in the Arctic.
She thanked Trump and reiterated that it is good for the U.S., Greenland, and Denmark.

And just discussing things with Denmark and asking for a new agreement wouldn't have worked? This trolling neeed to be done why? With an ally?

It is an advantageous Treaty for the U.S. The President made it happen.

True, 35th. There's no arguing that, from the US point of view, it's a very good deal that has been hammered out by your president.

However, Greenlanders may not be as happy with it as some Americans seem to think they should be. Greenland the 51st state? Or will they be another unincorporated territory, not a state, for how many years? Puerto Rico has been waiting for statehood for how many years? 128?

Dal

Obviously the 51st State was a joke. 😉

Greenland will not become a territory, well unless they beg for it. Contrary to all the hysteria of the MCM, politicians and TDS sufferers worldwide.

Why?

Because our politics change almost every 2 years. Unless you can get something done within the first two years, especially IF it does NOT go through the wasteland we call a Congress, it won't get done.

Case in point: The closing of the U.S. border. Done within the first two weeks and without Congress help. (I know, Biden, the Democrats, media and the rhinos all told us it couldn't be done for four years).

But…. It was.

I can't resist adding this. Anyone noticed the new migrate Caravan coming up through Mexico to our border? They disappeared after Trump was elected.

Now why would that suddenly happen now, out of nowhere? 😉

Anyone??

Think really, really hard. It should not take a lot of grey matter.

Anyway, no Greenland will not become a territory and never by force.

Who would want them as a 51st state? They're bloody socialist! For Gods sake, we don't need MORE socialist!! Same with half of Canada. We have more than enough here. 😂

We wanted more bases. Other advantages off shore for the military.

Access to potential resources? Of course.

A say so in who they can negotiate with… specifically one? Yes! That is part of the whole strategy in the hemisphere. The bloody Chinese were making inroads all over South and Central America, just like Africa and Asia.

Grattan

Your argument is a counterfactual, but I'm sure you knew that.

Obviously his tactics DID work. We have the treaty.

Dal, you say it's a good treaty for the U.S., but read above, many would bite off their own tongue first before admitting that. Just like the MSM and politicians.

Its a win-win all round.
US gets what it wants.
Denmark has someone else to garrison Greenland.
US is locked into NATO.

Be a spot to fight in though…..

Puerto Rico has not been "waiting for statehood." Last poll I saw, they divided three ways pretty equally: statehood, independence, stay as they are (which gives most advantages of statehood without some of the obligations).

What people like about the current setup is real:

Birthright U.S. citizenship and unrestricted migration to the 50 states
Dollar, U.S. courts, federal disaster aid, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid (the last two at lower matching rates)
No federal income tax on income earned in Puerto Rico for most residents
Local constitution, flag, Spanish as the language of government and schools

What they do not like is also real:

No vote for president from the island, no senators, one non-voting House member
Congress can override local law (PROMESA fiscal board is the live example)
Jones Act shipping rules raise costs
Unequal treatment in several federal programs
The arrangement is not a compact the U.S. cannot unwind

Myself, I'd have no issues with giving PR independence.

Obviously the 51st State was a joke.

I wonder if it was- at least in some peoples' minds- mate? It's a refrain that's being used quite a lot. Mostly as a "Ha! Ha! Never happen!" joke, I agree. But not always, especially when Canada is mentioned.

What they do not like is also real:

That's the crux of the matter, Doc. A lot of "citizens"- not necessarily a majority, nor anywhere near it- feel that they are 2nd class, quasi-noncitizens. And not all of them gain automatic citizenship, eg American Samoans. (Though, if Wiki is right, that's their own choice- but that says something in itself.) The US overseas territories remind me quite a bit of the British imperial colonies and citizens.

Otoh, no income tax.

Realistically, PR will never be a state as long as the GOP can block it.

Don't think we need any more states.

Not even Canada. 😉