WIREDGOV

EXPERT COMMENT

Denmark used its soft power to rally support and took the dispute out of the limelight – addressing underlying US interests instead of President Trump’s unacceptable public position.

This week, Denmark has extricated itself from a period of coercive US diplomacy over Greenland. The agreement announced on 22 September elegantly resolves the dispute over the territory, without forcing Denmark or the government of Greenland to give up very much. 

Even before the dispute, Denmark had indicated it would be content to increase the number of US bases in Greenland and enhance US access to them. These measures were already possible under an existing 1951 agreement. 

The new agreement adds an undertaking by Denmark and Greenland to refuse major investments from non-members of the EU or NATO that would grant them a foothold in strategic Arctic areas. Again, on this point, Washington was pushing on an open door.

The only meaningful change concerns the mechanism to ensure that this arrangement will be permanent. The 1951 agreement, amended in 2004, also does not expire. But the new text adds that Greenland will remain part of NATO and continue to comply with the agreement, should it opt for independence. 

An independent Greenland might have been willing to retain the US bases and related agreements anyway. After all, it would need to rely on US defence support and a NATO security guarantee. But expressly making these points in an agreement co-signed by Greenland overcame the deal-breaker of President Donald Trump’s demand for sovereignty over all of Greenland or at least the US base areas.

The agreement represents a masterclass by Denmark in using the classical art of diplomacy to overcome bullying, in an age of changing geopolitics and unstable global governance. 

Indeed, the steps Denmark took to resolve the dispute provide valuable insight into how countries can defend their interests in the face of apparently overwhelming pressure.

Click here to continue reading the full version of this Expert Comment on the Chatham House website.