Managed Deception and Imperial Politics: Trump’s Greenland Deal

In his second term, US President Donald Trump has gone the way of past executive tribunes of the American imperium in seeking land and resources like a kleptomaniacal pincher. This has been bracing, not least for a foreign policy establishment inured to the hypocrisies of virtue concealed in the international order of rules and protocols. Spot the international rule and break it.

Neither ally nor adversary have been spared Trump’s scorching petulance. Thuggish language has been forthcoming for Canada just as it was for Venezuela whose leader, Nicolás Maduro, was abducted, along with his wife, on fantastic charges related to narcotics trafficking. An enduring security ally such as Denmark will be seen as amenable to giving up control of Greenland to Washington. On that score, Trump has succeeded in needlessly convincing Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen to enter into a trilateral agreement that evokes the pseudo-colonial obsessions of old. Not that Washington had ever really relinquished strategic control over the territory, having had, during the Cold War, stationed anywhere between 10,000 and 25,000 troops based at some 17 military facilities.

The agreement does what should have already been assumed: reaffirming Danish sovereignty and recognising that Greenlanders “constitute a people pursuant to international law with the right to self-determination.” The text pointedly notes the “indispensable historical” role of the US and its “ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland and the rest of the North Atlantic Treaty area”. This included “significant sacrifices and billions of dollars spent over the better part of a century, dating back to before World War II and the establishment of NATO, and the irreplaceable role the United States military plays in the defense of the territory of Greenland now and in the future”.

In terms of military matters, the US is permitted to establish “an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig” while modernising and expanding activities in Pituffik Space Base. It remains open to Washington to establish additional defence areas in Greenland, along with strengthening “military operations or facilities.” Proposals to do so are to heed the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding and the 2004 Joint Declaration. Undersea access rights to the US in Greenlandic waters “without restriction except as mutually agreed upon by the Parties” is also assured.

For those familiar with the 1951 Agreement Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark Concerning the Defense of Greenland, much of the new agreement is surplusage. Arrangements are already in place permitting the establishment of defence areas by the US to “assist” Denmark in defending Greenland, station forces at them, and move personnel in the territory fairly unhindered. What makes these new arrangements somewhat different is the sine die element: unlike the 1951 agreement, which is intended to conclude in the event of NATO ceases, the current understanding is durably indefinite. “This Agreement does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent in accordance with Article XIII of the 1951 Defense Agreement.” Even if Greenland were to become independent, it would still be obligated to remain part of NATO, while Denmark would still have “rights and obligations” assumed under the agreement, making the issue of self-determination purely ceremonial.

Mindful of the alleged threats posed by “adversaries to expand influence and control in Greenland”, a greater muscularity in American invigilation on who invests in the territory is offered. States or investors not members of NATO, a NATO partner, or a European Union member state will not be permitted to have control, significant influence or access to non-public information that may constitute a threat to national security or public order, notably with regards “Particularly Sensitive Sector or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters)”. “The objective shall be ensured by Greenland in close cooperation with the authorities of the Kingdom of Denmark in its application of its current or future investment screening laws” with the Danes closely consulting “relevant United States authorities and other partners.” This merely clarified what was already an ongoing practice: that the Danish authorities will prevent unwanted foreign powers access to the territory, either individually or with US assistance, when they see fit.

Trump’s own reading of the agreement is unsparingly imperial: the arrangements give the US “permanent control over security, and all other needs, in Greenland, completely addressing ALL of our many US concerns.” Such control expands the hemispheric interests of Washington further and beyond the Americas in ensuring that “no US 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.”

A somewhat different interpretation is offered by the Danish PM, who described the agreement as one that strengthened “our common security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic Area and therefore is great for NATO and Europe as well.” She also preferred pointing at the candy floss of reassurance that this new understanding with Washington recognised “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination.” Nielsen, for his part, was merely happy to note that the agreement recognised “Greenland’s interests and our place in the [sic] international cooperation. It is to the benefit of us all.”

The Danish press, for their part, assumed that the Reality Television beast had been placated by smothering, convincing dissimulation. “Shhh. Don’t tell Trump that it’s the Kingdom of Denmark that has won,” chortled Jacob Heinel Jensen in Berlingske. “The craziest thing is that ministers, diplomats and civil servants have managed to sell it to Trump as a major personal triumph.” For TV2, correspondent Torsten Jansen offered a misguidedly smug assessment: “Even though Trump is trying to blare it out as a victory, it is, as I see it, a spectacular defeat.”

From afar, the French President Emmanuel Macron, observing Trump’s approach to the sovereignty of allies much as an anthropologist documents the mating rituals of newly found islanders, was cognisant “that Danish sovereignty is respected, that international law is respected, and that this is what we are asking for. So it’s a good thing.” The American President, in comment and substance, has comprehensively rebutted such suggestions, laying waste to international law when needed, ignoring diplomacy with temperamental inconsistency and keen, at points, to extend the wings of the American bald eagle, however clumsily. Danish assessments to the contrary are utterly premature. Sphere of influence politics has assumed its mantle, and Greenlanders would be best advised to be wary.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He currently lectures at RMIT University. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

   Comments0