"Who 'Got Greenland'? The Strange Winners of the U.S.-Denmark Agreement"

2026年09月20日
"Who 'Got Greenland'? The Strange Winners of the U.S.-Denmark Agreement"

The United States did not "acquire" Greenland. Denmark has not relinquished its sovereignty, and Greenland explains that its right to self-determination has been preserved. Nevertheless, all three parties are promoting the new security agreement as a success.

This is not an uncommon scene in diplomatic negotiations, but this agreement carries special significance. U.S. President Donald Trump, after the start of his second term, repeatedly expressed the idea of bringing Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, under U.S. control, and did not clearly rule out the possibility of military action. This situation shook the foundation of the alliance, as it involved intimidation over territory between NATO member countries.

The current agreement seems to have provided a way out of the crisis by replacing "territorial transfer" with "expansion of security cooperation." However, the agreement text has not yet been published, and necessary parliamentary procedures in Denmark and Greenland are pending after the signing. At this point, it can only be stated that the three parties are aiming for a signature, are committed to strengthening security in the Arctic and North Atlantic, and that the Danish side has clearly stated that sovereignty and the self-determination of Greenland's residents will be maintained.


Can "permanent management" and "maintenance of sovereignty" coexist?

The main focus is the significant difference in the language used by the U.S. and Nordic sides to describe the same agreement.

Trump claimed on his social media that the U.S. could permanently manage Greenland's security and "all other necessary matters." He also explained that explicit approval from Washington would be required if hostile countries were to establish bases or make sensitive investments. Furthermore, he indicated an immediate intention to expand the large-scale deployment of U.S. forces.

On the other hand, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen emphasized that the agreement recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the self-determination of Greenland's residents. Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen also stated that his country's interests and position in international cooperation are acknowledged.

Whether these two explanations truly do not contradict each other cannot be determined without seeing the unpublished provisions. Particularly noteworthy is whether the U.S. veto is limited to military bases or extends to "sensitive investments" such as ports, communications, and mining. It is also unclear whether there is a formal transfer of authority over diplomatic and resource policies.


The U.S. already had significant authority

Viewing this agreement solely as a "historic new control" overlooks important historical context.

The U.S. and Denmark signed the Greenland Defense Agreement in 1951, which was updated in 2004. The U.S. currently operates the Pituffik Space Base in the northwest and has a framework that allows it to expand troops and military facilities, provided it informs Denmark and Greenland in advance. During the Cold War, it is said that up to about 25,000 U.S. soldiers were deployed across 17 bases.

In other words, the U.S. was in a position to achieve many of its military needs without transferring ownership. This is why there is a view in Denmark that Trump is portraying as a major victory something that could have been achieved through regular diplomatic negotiations. Conversely, it can be explained that by meeting the U.S.'s security demands, Copenhagen removed the threat of annexation or military action from the agenda.

This may be an agreement that should be evaluated not by "who won," but by "what crisis was resolved without losing."


Why Greenland?

Greenland, the world's largest island, is located between North America and Europe, where the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans meet. It is also close to the presumed flight path of ballistic missiles connecting Russia and North America, making it important for early warning, space surveillance, and missile defense. As sea ice decreases and access to Arctic routes and resources expands, its strategic value will further increase.

Another reason is critical minerals. Greenland has potential mineral resources, including rare earths, which are attractive to the U.S. and Europe, who wish to reduce dependence on China. However, the potential for deposits and the feasibility of commercial production are not the same. Harsh climate, lack of transportation infrastructure, high development costs, environmental impact, and consensus-building with local communities, including indigenous peoples, pose significant barriers.

While the security agreement may increase the predictability of investments, if military and resources become too integrated, it could provoke backlash that Greenland's future is being decided by major powers rather than its residents. For those who have been re-evaluating their relationship with former colonial power Denmark, whether cooperation with the U.S. turns into a "new dependency" is a pressing issue.


On social media, "skillful compromise" and "sovereignty in words only" intersect

Online reactions are broadly divided into three categories. However, the following are representative opinions confirmed through public posts and reports, not statistical public opinion surveys.

The first is the reaction that views it as a victory for Danish diplomacy. Danish journalists and commentators often provide a somewhat ironic assessment that Denmark avoided territorial transfer while allowing U.S. military reinforcement, and had Trump accept the outcome as his own victory. The view is that much of what the U.S. gained could have been negotiated under existing agreements.

The second is the reaction that welcomes the strengthening of U.S. deterrence. Among Trump's supporters and posts emphasizing security, it is evaluated as an achievement in excluding Russia and China from the Arctic and protecting missile defense and critical mineral supply chains. NATO also welcomed the agreement as advancing regional security, stability, and cooperation.

The third is the reaction that doubts whether sovereignty will remain merely in words. This is because Trump's expression of "permanent management" is stronger than the explanations from Denmark and Greenland. Reports have surfaced of Greenland residents expressing that cooperation should be with NATO rather than under U.S. control, and concerns about their children and grandchildren becoming Americans in the future.

What can be understood from this is that the evaluation of the agreement is influenced not only by the text but also by "whose words explain it." In the era of social media diplomacy, translating the same compromise into multiple narratives and delivering it as a victory to supporters in each country has become part of the negotiation itself.


It's not a distant Arctic story for Japan

The impact on Japan may first appear in the supply chain of critical minerals. It has been reported that Japan plans to send a delegation, including the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, trading companies, and JOGMEC, to Greenland in the summer of 2026 to explore the possibility of rare earth development. Japan has repeatedly experienced the dangers of relying on specific countries for rare earths, which are essential for electric vehicles, wind power, electronics, and defense equipment.

If the U.S.-led security framework stabilizes the region and establishes transparent investment rules, it could be a tailwind for Japanese companies. As an ally of the U.S., it may become easier to participate in joint investments and technological cooperation. On the other hand, if the U.S. adopts a broad approach to determining the permissibility of "sensitive investments," even Japanese companies may be required to make political adjustments for each project. Rules may change not only for resource extraction but for the entire supply chain, including refining, transportation, ports, and communications.

Japan is not unrelated in terms of security either. The early warning network and space surveillance in the Arctic are linked not only to North American defense but also to missile information and space situational awareness shared by allies. If the U.S. increases its vigilance against China and Russia in the Arctic, it could lead to increased counteractive activities by both countries in the Far East and North Pacific, affecting Japan's surrounding defense plans.

What is further important is whether it sets a precedent that seeking interests through intimidation among allies can ultimately yield results in the form of "security cooperation." Japan has made sovereignty, territorial integrity, and opposition to changes in the status quo by force the pillars of its diplomacy concerning the East China Sea and Taiwan Strait. Even if all parties are satisfied with the compromise, the impact of the process of forming the agreement on the international order needs to be separately examined.


The true evaluation will come after seeing the text and implementation

In the short term, this agreement appears to be a realistic compromise that calms the crisis within NATO. The U.S. can strengthen military access and investment restrictions against China and Russia. Denmark can explain that it has protected its territory. Greenland may have the possibility of securing its self-determination and obtaining support for security and the economy.

However, many blanks remain. Without knowing the scale of the U.S. military, the location of facilities, cost-sharing, environmental regulations, judicial authority, the scope of investment review, the veto power of the Greenlandic government, and the treatment if it becomes independent in the future, it is impossible to determine whose authority extends how far.

What should be noted is not the magnitude of Trump's victory declaration. It is how the published text institutionalizes the will of Greenland's residents and who holds the final vote in decisions on resources and security.

Even if the map of the Arctic does not change, the boundaries of power can. Where that line is drawn connects to Japan's resource strategy, the Japan-U.S. alliance, and an international order based on rules rather than force.


Source URL

※As of September 20, 2026. The agreement text has not been published, and the evaluation may change based on the signing, parliamentary procedures, and the text published thereafter.

Tags

Recipe Restaurant Cafe Gourmet
Back to Home