Greenland: US and Denmark to sign an accord
Denmark and the US have reached a deal in the Greenland dispute, with an accord due to be signed on Friday. According to the BBC, it will prohibit non-Nato countries from establishing military bases on Greenland and ban investments on the island that could pose a threat to the US. This means that the idea of the US annexing Greenland is apparently off the table. Copenhagen and Washington have both expressed their satisfaction. Rightly so?
The best possible deal
Jyllands-Posten applauds the move:
“After years of high-tension drama, verbal sparring and behind-the-scenes diplomatic efforts, an agreement has now been reached that bears a striking resemblance to the deal the US has had with the Kingdom of Denmark since 1951. ... As long as Trump's administration is at the helm, no one can rest easy. But everything suggests that the agreement on Greenland's security is the best possible one – for all parties involved.”
Adapting to a changing world
The US did not need a new agreement simply to station troops in Greenland, Proto Thema explains:
“It's had this right for decades. ... The 1951 agreement answered the question of how the US could use Greenland to defend the North Atlantic. The new agreement also seeks to answer a second question: how to ensure that China, Russia or any other rival power does not also acquire a strategic base on the island in the future? ... In this respect, it represents an adaptation and extension of the 1951 agreement to a changed world: to the era of competition between the US, China and Russia, of the [US missile defence project] 'Golden Dome', of critical raw materials and an Arctic that is becoming increasingly important both militarily and economically.”
Let Trump play the winner
The EU has skillfully managed this situation, Le Soir emphasises:
“Perhaps Europe's true strength lies in defeating Trump without making him lose face. Several countries sent troops to Greenland, the EU has committed 200 million euros there, and negotiations continued away from the media spotlight. All that was needed was a sufficiently glamorous exit for the US president. ... The approach is skillful, but also unsettling. Western diplomats must spend months resolving crises created by their main ally, only to then convince him that he has emerged victorious. The Greenland agreement may sound like a triumph of reason. Above all, however, it confirms this strange rule of Trump diplomacy: to preserve what really matters, one must leave the victory narrative to Donald Trump.”
Steadfastness pays off
Trump's threats have had positive effects for Europe, the taz concludes:
“Faced with this external threat, Denmark felt compelled to step up its efforts to improve relations with its former colony. ... What Nuuk and Copenhagen have demonstrated together is that it pays not to be intimidated by a seemingly all-powerful adversary. Their steadfastness vis-à-vis Trump could – and this would be a further positive side-effect – serve as a model for other victims of bullying.”