- 1 minute ago
US President Trump says a new Greenland agreement gives the US permanent security control. But Denmark insists its sovereignty is intact, and Washington already enjoyed military access. So what has really changed?
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Donald Trump has announced a big security deal with Greenland, and spoiler, he's calling
00:06it a dream come true for the United States.
00:08But here's the interesting thing.
00:10I'll be speaking to an expert in just a moment who will explain why Trump might not have
00:15actually gained that much more than the US already had, and lost the trust of NATO allies.
00:21And to understand that, let's take a look at Greenland.
00:25Here it is between North America and the Arctic.
00:27And up here on Greenland's northwestern coast is Pitufik Space Base.
00:32It's already a key military installation providing missile warning and space surveillance.
00:37And under an agreement dating back to 1951, the United States already has extensive military
00:44access to Greenland.
00:46So what changes now?
00:48We don't know the full contents of the deal, but according to a State Department official,
00:52it bans any non-NATO bases in Greenland, limits adversaries from being able to make investments
00:58there, and guarantees that China and Russia cannot have a base in the Danish Territory.
01:04Let's take a look then at what the main players in this story have been saying in response.
01:09In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the agreement would grant the US permanent control over security
01:15and all other needs, that the deal came with no cost to the United States, would grant the
01:21US the ability to do what is necessary, and would secure and defend the security of Greenland.
01:29Denmark's Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, said the agreement strengthens our common security
01:34in the Arctic and the North Atlantic area, while also, at the same time, recognises the sovereignty
01:39and territorial integrity of the Kingdom, and the right of the Greenlandic people to
01:45self-determination.
01:46And Greenland PM Jens Frederik Nielsen said in a statement announcing the deal,
01:52the agreement recognises Greenland's interests and our place in international cooperation.
01:58It is for the benefit of us all.
02:02Alright then, let's get some perspective on this from Muchtabar Rahman.
02:06He's a geopolitical analyst specialising in Europe and transatlantic relations and managing
02:12director for Europe at the Eurasia Group.
02:15Muchtabar, welcome to DW.
02:17Great to have you.
02:18I want to start with a question I think could be seen as very cynical, but we have to explore
02:23it.
02:24What did Donald Trump actually get here?
02:29I don't think he got very much.
02:31I think the US was looking for a number of things in its negotiations with Denmark and Greenland.
02:39It wanted additional basing rights on the island.
02:43It wanted interceptors to be placed all over the island.
02:48It was looking to secure a deep water port.
02:50It wanted freedom of navigation to be able to roam freely across the island without the permission
02:57of either the Greenlanders or indeed the Danish authorities.
03:01And they were looking for a guarantee that Greenland won't become independent over the medium term.
03:08I don't think they've managed to secure that latter guarantee.
03:14It would have completely crossed and transgressed Denmark and Greenland's red lines.
03:20All it seems Trump has managed to secure is a commitment that the Chinese and the Russians
03:27won't be able to do things on the island they were otherwise never going to do anyway.
03:32So let's pick that up then.
03:33What likelihood was there of China or Russia setting up bases on Greenland?
03:38Very unlikely.
03:39And I think the Greenlanders and the Danes were also incredibly straightforward and clear
03:46with the administration that when it comes to mining and access to critical raw materials
03:52and minerals, the US could absolutely get licenses and do those things on the island.
04:00And so I don't think Trump has won very much, frankly, from the deal.
04:06I think it's a big win for Greenland.
04:07I think it's a big win for Denmark.
04:09Their key red lines on territorial integrity, on the right to self-determination for the Greenlanders
04:17and the population of Greenland, all of those key red lines have absolutely been respected.
04:22And the agreement is completely compatible with the 1951 framework that governs the relationship
04:29between Greenland and the US and Denmark when it comes to the island.
04:33Yeah.
04:34I wanted to explore that with you.
04:36What do Denmark, Greenland, NATO and the United States have that they didn't have yesterday?
04:40Focusing in on that Denmark and Greenland leg you just did, they spent months resisting
04:45Trump's pressure over Greenland.
04:48Why has Copenhagen ultimately agreed to this deal?
04:53I mean, they've done the deal for the reasons I've said.
04:56The red lines that they articulated have been respected.
04:59It doesn't cut across the rights of the Greenland people.
05:05It doesn't cut across the concerns about territorial integrity.
05:09You'll remember earlier in the year, there was a concern that Trump was seeking sovereignty
05:14over the island, not just additional basing rights, but the Americans actually wanted to
05:18own Greenland because they believed that was the only way to ensure the island and ultimately
05:24America's security from this emerging Russian and Chinese threat.
05:27I effectively think the Americans have walked back all the demands that they were making
05:32and we'll see more of the detail over time.
05:35But what has been agreed is very consistent, as I say, with Greenland and Denmark's red lines.
05:41I do think it is consistent with our overarching view that the transatlantic relationship
05:48is stabilizing somewhat.
05:49You know, of course, Trump can fire off a truth, a social post, and there are some underlying
05:57tensions when it comes to trade and Ukraine.
06:00But the overall relationship between America and Europe has become somewhat more bounded,
06:05I think, compared to where we were at the beginning of Trump's presidency.
06:09The major threat, the major concern Europe is now worried about and confronting is that
06:13coming from Russia, certainly in Ukraine, in the Ukraine theater, but also with respect
06:18to NATO allies.
06:19We've seen a major increase in Russian hybrid activity over the course of the last several
06:24months.
06:25I suspect that will continue as things continue to go poorly for Putin in Ukraine, but also
06:32China.
06:32I think there is a lot of concern about what China is doing on the economic side.
06:37And so when you talk to senior European officials and policymakers and leaders, that's where their
06:42real energy focus and concern is right now.
06:45It's on Russia.
06:46It's on China.
06:47I think the general sense is transatlantic relations have stabilised, and the Greenland
06:52and the deal announced overnight, I think, is consistent with that view.
06:56Yeah, considering where we were when there were the NATO meetings and European meetings
07:01to try and work out what to do about these threats from Donald Trump, I want to pitch to
07:05you, I guess, NATO was the big winner here.
07:09Again, as opposed to what could have happened, the destruction that could have been done by
07:14done to NATO by the United States invading territory of one of its own members, as it was threatened
07:19to do.
07:20Is NATO a winner here or did it just dodge a bullet?
07:25I think the transatlantic relationship is in a slightly better place as a result of the agreement, right?
07:33This was a big underlying risk.
07:34Could this risk resurface at some point if Denmark and Greenland are willing to do the things the Trump administration
07:42was demanding, as I say, these commitments
07:46around Greenland's independence, which nobody would have been able to give to the American administration.
07:52And so there was this underlying risk with the transatlantic relationship coming from Greenland.
07:58And, of course, that would have presented a material risk to NATO, frankly, and the survival of NATO if the
08:03administration had ultimately determined
08:05that because they can't secure what they want through negotiation, they've effectively got to secure sovereignty over the island.
08:11Then, of course, that would end NATO and our current understanding of NATO.
08:16I mean, you'd have one ally invading another with all of the implications that would then create.
08:20So I think the alliance is a winner.
08:22I do think NATO is a winner.
08:24I do think they've dodged a bullet.
08:25I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive.
08:28And I think, as I say, the big risks to the transatlantic relationship now are probably over trade, probably over
08:35European regulation of US tech companies.
08:38That is a source of concern in the administration, as well as Ukraine and Russia and which way the administration
08:45leans on that war,
08:47which is an ongoing source of concern and risk from Europe's perspective.
08:52Yeah, usually if someone tries to sell me on a four-sided, very consequential geopolitical tug of war working out
08:58in everyone's favour,
09:00it sounds like a fantasy.
09:01But is there an element to this, Mujtaba, that you can say that what we have results, that changes nothing
09:10materially very fast?
09:11And that's kind of a victory for everyone at this point, considering where we could have been?
09:18Yes, I think that's right.
09:19I think the goal of Denmark and Greenland was to keep negotiations ongoing, to kick it into the long grass,
09:26maybe beyond the midterms.
09:28If Trump is weaker, it would make an agreement easier to secure.
09:33But given some of the things the US administration was demanding, I think the goal was to effectively keep the
09:39discussion in a negotiating tunnel,
09:41keep the administration engaged, all sides talking, so it doesn't become destructive, as it did earlier in the year.
09:48Of course, that would have created a risk at some point that Trump loses patience and tries to do more
09:54extreme and potentially violent things.
09:56And so the fact that there is now a framework agreement that Trump is willing to commit his signature to,
10:02that Denmark and Greenland can commit their signatures to, that respects the key red lines on the European side, I
10:09think is a very good thing.
10:11And something, you know, if ultimately Trump wants to call this a win, I don't think Greenland or Denmark or
10:16Europe are going to deny Trump's right to do that and to claim that,
10:21I think, compared to the risks this could have presented had things gone wrong, you know, that's a small price
10:26to pay, I think, from Europe's perspective.
10:29Let Trump claim the win.
10:31Yeah, very much so.
10:32Sometimes it does feel like a lot is happening in the world that is just happening on the whims of
10:38one man.
10:39And there isn't, therefore, always a lot to learn from each experience as we go along in Trump's second term.
10:46But what about this time?
10:48Is there a model, is there a template for how NATO countries dealt with the United States under Trump to
10:55achieve this outcome?
10:57I think Rutter has been a super effective NATO Secretary General.
11:05He never talks to Trump in ways that are condescending.
11:11He takes the American concern and the Trump administration concern at face value.
11:18He speaks to them seriously where the administration has a legitimate point of view.
11:24For example, European underspend on its own security and defence.
11:27He tries to push and move the political needle within the European context to affect an outcome that will satisfy
11:35the administration.
11:35And so that process of engagement and dialogue, I think, has proven to be incredibly effective.
11:42And I think Rutter was absolutely key in ensuring in January that the Trump administration's concerns over Greenland were taken
11:51seriously,
11:52that there is an emerging Russian and Chinese threat, that the Europeans and the Danish authorities and Greenland needs to
12:00be alive too.
12:00There was a NATO context, there was an initiative known as Arctic Century within the NATO context that was designed
12:08to increase NATO's presence and posture around the island to do more, to address these emerging American concerns.
12:16And so I think Rutter has been a role model, frankly, about ways in which you can effectively engage the
12:23administration to manage and head off some of these risks.
12:27I think President von der Leyen, European Commission president, has been another good example of how you engage the administration
12:32to ultimately deliver negotiated outcomes that prevent things spiralling out of control.
12:39And so I think that process of dialogue, diplomacy, engagement has worked quite well for Europe.
12:46And for that reason, as I say, the risks now are more bounded when we think about the transatlantic relationship
12:54and potential sources of friction in the future.
12:59Just one more to finish.
13:00I want to know how much of this deal you think is about real geopolitical problem solving for Trump on
13:07a truly meta scale on which it's pitched, regional security, Russian interests, NATO interests,
13:12or how much, and you raised the specter earlier, how much of this solution is about domestic politics and what
13:18Trump needs before these very consequential, it seems, midterm elections?
13:24I think it's both.
13:26I think it's both.
13:27I think there were concerns within the administration about the issues that we have talked about around Greenland, but also
13:38the Arctic more generally.
13:39I think there's a domestic political context, obviously, with things going wrong in the Iran theatre, in Israel, Iran, and
13:47America not able to get on the same page and deliver an agreement that reopens the strait and bears down
13:52on energy prices.
13:53Trump is heading into midterm elections with material economic headwinds that he is confronting.
13:59And so a kind of win over Greenland that he can sell as a big success, I think, does those
14:07two things.
14:08It speaks to the bigger geopolitical concerns that the administration has, but also plays potentially well internally for the administration
14:15that's struggling in light of what's happening with Iran.
14:18I don't think those things are mutually exclusive.
14:20Whether it fundamentally changes the outcome of what we will see beyond the midterms, I think, is a totally separate
14:26question.
14:27I'm going to break my promise and ask one more.
14:29Just back to NATO.
14:31Trump's threats over Greenland, they caused serious tensions with European NATO allies.
14:36You talked about Rutter and his involvement here and how well he's done it.
14:40Does this agreement now close that chapter or has lasting damage been done to the transatlantic relationship?
14:50I'm of the view that the damage is structural, long-term, irreversible.
14:56It's not just Greenland.
14:57I think Greenland may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
15:00But it's really, it's a bunch of things that happened earlier on in Trump's administration.
15:04It's the cosying up to Putin, the complete unwillingness of the administration to lean on Russia and its leader for
15:12the war of aggression in Ukraine and the attacks against NATO allies.
15:17It's the tensions on trade.
15:19It's the totally ambivalent and ambiguous commitment to Article 5.
15:24It was the Greenland threat.
15:27You know, you just never really know where you stand with the administration.
15:30Now, notwithstanding, as I said, that the risks have become more bounded, I do think Macron has basically won the
15:35argument within Europe around the need for Europe to do more strategic autonomy.
15:39And that's what you're seeing Europe do over the medium term, build out its own security and defense architecture, spend
15:46more on its own security and defense.
15:48You saw the EU-Canada announcements by Carney and President von der Leyen.
15:54And so Europe trying to do more with middle powers and so on and so forth.
15:58I think Europe has intellectually moved on from the US and from the administration.
16:04And I don't think this will reverse that dynamic.
16:07I think leaders understand that America, whether under Trump or a future leader, is not going back to the America
16:15that we knew and understood.
16:16And as a result, Europe has to look after itself in its own backyard and build a broader geopolitical coalition
16:22to fight for its interests in the world.
16:25And I don't think that dynamic will now stop.
16:27I think that train has already left the station quite some time ago.
16:31Mujtaba Raman, it's been enlightening.
16:33And it's been a real pleasure to be able to pick your brain today, geopolitical analyst and managing director for
16:38Europe at the Eurasia Group.
16:40Mujtaba, a big thank you.
16:43Thanks for having me.
16:46Mujtaba, a big thank you.
Comments