Long-standing agreements give Washington broad military authority on the Arctic island, raising questions about the need for purchase or takeover.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom,
President Donald Trump has intensified public rhetoric around Greenland in recent weeks, arguing that U.S. control of the Arctic island is essential for national security. However, defense experts and Danish officials note that existing Cold War–era agreements already provide the United States with expansive military access across Greenland, eliminating the need to purchase or seize the territory, according to reporting by The New York Times.
“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” Trump said recently, renewing tensions with Denmark and Greenland’s semi-autonomous government as administration officials have privately discussed options ranging from a negotiated purchase to direct U.S. control.
Security analysts point out that a 1951 defense agreement between the United States and Denmark already grants Washington extensive authority on the island. Under the pact, U.S. forces are permitted to build, operate, and maintain military bases, station personnel, and exercise broad control over air and sea movements throughout Greenland.
“The U.S. has such a free hand in Greenland that it can pretty much do what it wants,” said Mikkel Runge Olesen, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies. “I have a very hard time seeing that the U.S. couldn’t get pretty much everything it wanted — if it just asked nicely.”
While Trump has suggested Greenland should ultimately fall under U.S. control, legal experts and Danish officials say outright acquisition is not possible under international and domestic law. Greenlanders retain the right to self-determination, and Denmark does not have the authority to sell the territory.
Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has said plainly that the island is not for sale. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has likewise emphasized that the existing defense pact already provides the United States with “wide access to Greenland,” warning that threats or coercion would undermine the international order.
The agreement was formally updated in 2004 to include Greenland’s own government, requiring U.S. consultation before any “significant changes” to military activity. Even with that provision, Danish defense analysts acknowledge that Washington would likely encounter little resistance if it sought to expand its presence through established diplomatic channels.
“If the U.S. wanted to act without asking, it could simply inform Denmark,” said Peter Ernstved Rasmussen, a Danish defense analyst. “In practice, the U.S. would always get a yes.”
That reality has left some Danish officials questioning why the Trump administration has escalated its rhetoric rather than relying on the framework already in place.
“The mechanism is there. It’s in place,” said Jens Adser Sørensen, a former senior official in Denmark’s Parliament. “Why don’t you use it if you’re so worried about security?”
Beyond military considerations, Greenland’s large reserves of critical minerals have also attracted attention from Trump allies. Analysts say those resources could be accessed through commercial partnerships rather than territorial control — an approach Greenland’s leaders have indicated they are open to exploring.
Original article
Comments