Aannguaq Reimer-Johansen/ has created the popular hat
My 20-year-old analysis of the military Igaliku Agreement signed between the US, Denmark and Greenland in 2004. I emphasise Greenland’s role as a leg in the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), suggest that it could drive a parallel international peace policy, and I raise the possibility of a future conflict with the US – which is now a fact.
March 30, 2025
Donald Trump was out in 2019 to get Greenland. The Danish PM, Mette Frederiksen, replied that that was an ‘absurd’ proposal. Trump felt hurt and cancelled his planned visit to Denmark; in a follow-up phone conversation, I assume that he scolded her very seriously and I assume that, behind the scenes, this was one of the most serious foreign policy crises Denmark has faced – the alliance relations with the US being sacrosant in that country. They then, according to Trump, reconciled – but what do we really know?
Be this as it may, only a few months later, talks between Frederiksen’s government and the US began – behind the backs of parliament, the “Folketing,” and the Danish public and press negotiations – about establishing US bases in Denmark, a clear violation of Danish policy since 1949 when Denmark was a co-founding member of NATO.
In the spring of 2025, this base agreement will be pushed through parliament after having been signed already in Washington in December 2023 by the Danish foreign minister, Løkke Rasmussen.
And we know that ever since 2019, PM Mette Frederiksen has never uttered a critical word about anything American; she is famous for the expression that there must not be as much as an A4 paper sheet between the US and “us,” that is, Denmark and Europe.
She has made Denmark a prime driver of military support to Ukraine and of Re-Arming Europe. And she has given her full support to the genocide of Palestinians – and more that shapes a consistent pattern. At the Munich Security Conference, she reiterated that the goal for Europe, of course, was to make Ukraine win over Russia. She has also repeatedly said that Putin must be stopped because Ukraine is only the beginning; if he is not stopped there, he will continue to occupy other European states. There is no example where she has offered an analysis.
In summary and indisputably, Frederiksen lives inside the groupthink-closed world of the black-and-white narrative and is more loyal to the US than to the security and peace interests of the Danes.
On March 15, 2025, there was a large demonstration in the capital of Nuuk against the American interest in taking over and controlling Greenland. Photo Oscar Scott. Published in Sermitsiaq.
The Trump Regime’s provocative and repeated statements about taking over Greenland and not excluding the use of military means if necessary were met with embarrassingly weak and uncertain reactions in Copenhagen. Evidently, the Danish “intelligence” service, researcher and the Frederiksen government were surprised that Trump would raise that issue again. They had stared for years only at Russia/Ukraine and China in a delusional black-and-white perspective.
It wasn’t until Vance’s visit to Greenland that Danish ministers raised their voices, and she decided to visit Greenland in early April to show her solidarity. However, she and other ministers emphasise in almost every statement that the US remains ‘our closest ally and friend’ and that Denmark is very open to both US criticism and US cooperation. Here is Danish foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, talking to his US friends and allies right after Vice-President Vance had left Greenland.
One can’t help but ask: How would he and the other Danish ministers have reacted to repeated, arrogant and scolding/condescending “I am going to get Greenland, we must have it for US and world security and I do not exclude military means” statements had they been made by Russia or China?
•
Protesters marching in Nuuk held signs such as ‘We are not for sale!’ Image: Christian Klindt Soelbeck/REUTERS
Twenty years ago, I visited Greenland or Kalaallit Nunaat in Greenlandic. Regrettably, it’s still my only visit. By no means, therefore, am I an expert on its culture, politics, people, resources or anything else for that matter. I only see it as an outsider with some perspectives on its security political dilemmas.
In 2004, Greenland, Denmark and the US signed the Igaliku Agreement – which was an amendment to the original 1951 Agreement about the US military presence in Greenland.
On that occasion, I presented a peace research perspective on the Igaliku Agreement at a conference held at the University of Greenland (Ilisimatusarfik) on May 10, 2005. It was later published in “Greenlandic Cultural and Social Research 2004-05.”
Today, I wish even more that Greenland had not signed that agreement – or had tried to develop a parallel international peace policy and linked up with others who want the US and its military bases to go away.
