In the longer term a new defence agreement announced by the Trump administration, Denmark and Greenland on September 18th represents a modest advance on previous treaties. THE ARCTIC is a safer place for America and its allies today. Due credit must go to President Donald Trump, a self-styled man of peace. He has, after all, lifted the shadow of imminent invasion from Greenland , the vast and hard-to-defend island that guards NATO’s high north. It will make it easier for America to strengthen its military presence on the island, and to control encroachment on Greenlandic soil by China, Russia and other adversaries.
Not long ago, Atlanticist Denmark would never have signed up to that sort of Gallic scheme. At least a deal was done. That stands in contrast with interminable talks over Ukraine, Iran and Gaza that Mr Trump has entrusted to his fellow property developers, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Those envoys are guided by the principle that foreign-policy disputes are, at root, wrangles about land and resources, which can be resolved by offering profitable opportunities to each side. But the final deal was the result of months of discreet diplomacy, supervised on the American side by Marco Rubio, the American secretary of state and national security adviser, and by his deputy Mike Needham. Mr Trump did not offer a running commentary on the talks, and there were no boasts about billion-dollar profits to be made. Not long ago Danes were among the most pro-American of Europeans. Their government this year signalled interest in joining other European members of NATO in accepting an offer to be protected by France’s nuclear deterrent. But the Greenland scare leaves European governments determined to be less dependent on a fickle America.
Just 7% called America an ally in a poll in May.
As if pleading for Mr Trump to take a win for quiet professionalism and move on, Mr Rubio says that “this deal permanently and completely addresses our national security concerns in Greenland. Asked whether Mr Trump is a good salesman for European weapons, as NATO members think twice about buying American, a Nordic prime minister replies: “Absolutely.”
Earlier on, some in Trump-world talked loudly about minerals and oil buried beneath Greenland’s permafrost, ignoring warnings about the expense of Arctic operations.
Time and again, including in a speech that appalled world leaders at Davos in January, he applied a property developer’s logic to America’s decades-old presence on Greenland. In that address to the World Economic Forum, he scorned his predecessor, Harry Truman, for handing Greenland back to Denmark at the end of the second world war, ending an American military occupation of the island designed to stop it falling into the hands of Nazi Germany. Back then, he insisted that he needed to own Greenland outright, title deeds and all. To be fair, previous presidents had similar concerns. After Denmark balked, cold war America settled for a treaty allowing it to maintain bases on Greenland more or less at will, as long as Denmark was consulted. Now America has a president who talks big about taking territory, from the Western Hemisphere to the Middle East. Thankfully for other governments, he has been content, thus far, with fantasies showing him planting the Stars and Stripes on far-flung lands, in AI-generated images of conquest pumped out by White House social-media minions. In the actual case of Greenland, he has settled for what amount to reworded lease terms, with demands for ownership quietly dropped. It remains unclear what that he means by that, for Denmark, a country of 6m people, is not about to foot the whole bill for America’s Arctic garrison. Nor will Mr Trump’s departure heal all wounds. Eagerly defending his boss, Vice-President J.D. Vance called Denmark a bad ally, appalling Danes who remember the heavy losses their troops suffered, fighting alongside America in Afghanistan and Iraq. Denmark learned a painful lesson: the next generation of American leaders includes many veterans like Mr Vance, who think the war on terror was a catastrophe and feel no nostalgia for its shared struggles. America’s desire for Arctic bases (and Europe’s need for American help to deter Russia) resolved this particular presidential tantrum. But gibes asking why America should defend foreign soil cannot be unsaid. The transatlantic bond is growing colder and far more transactional. Mr Trump wanted Greenland to be part of his legacy and so it will be. Just not as he imagined.
In 1946 the Truman administration officials and army chiefs thought Greenland was so strategic that they seriously considered buying it from Denmark for $100m in gold ($1.71bn in today’s money), or swapping bits of it for chunks of Alaska.
“How stupid were we to do that?” growled Mr Trump, accusing modern Denmark of ingratitude. If a war breaks out, “who the hell wants to defend a licence agreement or a lease?” the president demanded to know. Mr Trump calls the new agreement a “dream come true” for America, which he says now controls Greenland’s security and “all other needs” in perpetuity. There will be no cost to America as it develops a “large military presence” in Greenland, he adds.
By Mr Trump’s own previously stated standards, the deal falls short. Truman and his successors saw value in America shunning the colonial land-grabs of earlier great powers.
