World News

2476 readers

838 users here now

Rules:
Be a decent person.
No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, zionism/nazism, and so on.

Other Great Communities:

Rules

Be excellent to each other

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Deceptichum@quokk.au

Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.com

US and Denmark reach deal over Greenland after Trump's vows to take island (www.abc.net.au)

submitted 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) by Quokka@quokk.au to c/world@quokk.au

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

In short:

US President Donald Trump says he has struck a deal with Denmark that gives the US "permanent control" over Greenland's security.

Mr Trump said the US would "immediately" begin developing a larger military presence in Greenland, months after he vowed to take the strategic island by force.

What's next?

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen says the deal will be signed by the three governments next week, adding the deal "recognises the sovereignty and territorial integrity" of Greenland and Denmark.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FrederikNJS@piefed.zip 9 points 1 week ago (3 children)

As a dane, I can't help but wonder... Isn't this the deal we had with the US all along?

The previous agreement already gave the US permission to build military bases in Greenland, and they used to have many more bases, but the US chose to close down those bases themselves...

So isn't this basically the same as it already was, maybe with the benefit of it looking nice to Trumps voters that he didn't lose, because he got everything he wanted, eventhough he technically already had it?

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

No, it isn't. The US, if the deal passes and reporting is accurate, now no longer has to seek permission or even notify Denmark or Greenland about military buildup on the island. They have veto power over foreign investment on the island. And this all holds even if Greenland decides to go independent. Denmark basically agreed to the terms that Canada recently refused when the US tried to strongarm us into a bad deal.

[–] FrederikNJS@piefed.zip 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You sure about that? As far as I know the agreement is still not public

[–] grte@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Of course not, that's why I prefaced my original comment with

If both of these things are true

I'm going off the reporting I've seen thus far.

[–] FrederikNJS@piefed.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Well then... the deal is now publicly available... Here you go, have a read: https://stm.dk/media/fx1h4fqx/aftale_eng.pdf

As far as I read it, it...:

... states that the 1951 agreement is still valid
... allows the US to establish military bases at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig (which they could just have asked for under the 1951 agreement. Narsarsuaq was previously used by the US as both air and sea bases, but Mestersvig is new, but the US has previously had at least 3 military installations not too far away from there)
... allows the US to establish other military bases in Greenland, but this requires permission (just like the 1951 agreement)
... bans non-NATO powers to establish military installations, and make direct investments, unless otherwise agreed on by all parties.
... allows the US to establish unmanned military installations, but this requires permission (I also think this would have been fine under the 1951 agreement, but "unmanned" might be a special case)
... specifies that all contracts should be awarded to the greenlandic people to the maximum extent possible (This is new, and nice)
... allows free movement of US vessels, aircraft, armed forces, and vehicles between the bases (which was already allowed in the 1951 agreement)

I dunno... the big thing seems to be the stuff around non-NATO investment and military... everything else seems to work under the 1951 agreement...

It seems to me that we have yet another TACO Tuesday, with the benefit of Trump being able to claim victory to appease his voters... without having actually won much...

[–] possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Som amerikaner mener jeg, at vores regering bør lade Danmark være i fred. Undskyld for ikke godt Dansk, jeg lærer.

[–] FrederikNJS@piefed.zip 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Jeg er meget enig.

Og dit danske er fint forståeligt! Godt gået!

[–] possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

Tak for det! Jeg har boede deltid i Danmark for 1.5 år nu, og dansk er meget svært at lære. If you run into someone speaking broken Danish in a really heavy american accent, then that may be me 😅

[–] AviAdi@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes definitely! It's all the same that's why they have to vote on it but keep it secret until after the vote. Trust your government, they know what's best! 😂😂😂😂

[–] FrederikNJS@piefed.zip 1 points 1 week ago

Sure, never trust your government... however in this instance, nothing much has changed... But Trump can claim victory because he got a deal...

https://piefed.zip/comment/7204881