{"id":45810,"date":"2026-09-19T20:55:17","date_gmt":"2026-09-19T18:55:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=45810"},"modified":"2026-09-19T20:55:21","modified_gmt":"2026-09-19T18:55:21","slug":"trumps-fuer-immer-trifft-auf-groenlands-und-daenemarks-widerspruch","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/trumps-fuer-immer-trifft-auf-groenlands-und-daenemarks-widerspruch\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump\u2019s \u201cForever\u201d Meets Resistance From Greenland and Denmark"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Nuuk, all it takes right now is one look at a map to put Donald Trump's latest declaration of victory into perspective. Greenland is still exactly where it was yesterday, and it still belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark. Meanwhile, the American president is proclaiming that Washington will gain permanent control over the island's security. Copenhagen and Nuuk are pointing to something else: Any future agreement must respect the sovereignty of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination. Nothing has been signed yet.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

On Friday evening, the United States, Denmark, and Greenland announced that they had reached an understanding on an agreement that would allow a significant expansion of the American military presence and prohibit adversarial nations from establishing bases on the island. The agreement is expected to be signed next week during the UN General Assembly. The statements released so far say nothing about how many additional troops would be stationed there. It also remains unclear whether Washington would receive formal authority over foreign policy or Greenland's natural resources. Precisely where Trump is already talking like the owner, the actual text of the agreement has yet to be made public. A military presence can be expanded without changing the island's legal status. Whether the announced restrictions on foreign investments would go beyond that remains an open question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

On his Truth Social platform Friday, Trump declared that the United States would \"forever\" have the ability to do whatever was necessary to defend Greenland and the United States. The agreement, he said, would give Washington permanent control over the island's security and all its other needs. Adversaries would no longer be allowed to maintain bases or establish a military presence there. Sensitive investments would also be prohibited without the express written approval of the American government. The rights the 3 parties have actually agreed upon cannot be fully determined from the information released so far. There are also no further details about how the ban on adversarial military bases would work in practice. That leaves open the question of who would make the decision in the event of a dispute and on what grounds approval for an investment could be denied.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Saturday, Denmark and Greenland pushed back <\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

On Saturday, Denmark and Greenland therefore rejected any suggestion that their sovereign rights were up for grabs. Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said the proposed agreement recognized the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom, as well as the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination. Foreign Minister Lars L\u00f8kke Rasmussen wrote that next week could be a good one for Greenland and the other parties involved. The period of uncertainty would hopefully give way to a binding agreement that would strengthen security in the Arctic and the North Atlantic. Their shared security within NATO and Europe could also benefit. The Kingdom of Denmark's red lines must be respected. For Trump, the focus is on American authority. For Nielsen, it is on Greenland's right to decide its own future. Both are talking about the same agreement, whose exact provisions are still missing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read also our article: Trump threatened to take over Greenland - now he gets more military presence and the island stays Danish<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those red lines only had to be repeated so often in the first place because Trump had previously made Greenland the target of American takeover demands. His threats reached a peak in January and triggered a diplomatic crisis that strained relations within NATO. Denmark and Greenland repeatedly insisted that the island was not for sale and that Washington had to respect the sovereignty of the Kingdom. The negotiations that followed were intended to ease the pressure. Now, what began as a threatened takeover has turned into an agreement on additional military cooperation, with its exact scope still unknown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
September 17, 2026<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

In Greenland, the prospect of closer ties with Washington is meeting considerable resistance. Many people reject American control over their homeland and prefer cooperation within NATO. The idea that their children and grandchildren could one day become Americans is being firmly rejected. While Washington talks about permanent security rights, people on the island are concerned about their own future and their right to decide it for themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Behind the dispute lies a question that is difficult to answer with the word \"security\" alone: How far can foreign decision-making powers extend before self-determination starts shrinking on paper? Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, a political science professor at the University of Copenhagen, does not believe that the proposed agreement is likely to put an end to Trump's ambitions for Greenland. American interest in the island and its natural resources will also continue, he believes. If Copenhagen were to transfer formal powers to Washington, Greenland would face the question of whether its colonial relationship with Denmark was being replaced by a colonial relationship with the United States. No such transfer of authority has been established so far.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NATO, unsurprisingly, welcomed the proposed agreement on Saturday. A spokesperson for the alliance said it could strengthen security and cooperation in this important region and contribute to stability. The alliance's approval, however, is no substitute for a published agreement or the consent of the people whose homeland is being made the subject of far-reaching security rights. Over the past several months, they have had to listen as the president of an allied nation spoke about their island as though its future owner were primarily a matter of American determination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Washington and Copenhagen remain at odds over what the proposed agreement actually means. Trump says Washington will have permanent authority to determine what Greenland's security requires. The governments in Nuuk and Copenhagen insist that their sovereignty and Greenland's right to self-determination must remain untouched. Only the full text will reveal what powers actually lie behind all those grand words. Until the agreement is scheduled to be signed next week, permanent American control remains a claim made by the president. Meanwhile, the people of Nuuk have to listen yet again as others talk about their future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n