Grenland, Danska kažu da Trumpov dogovor neće ugroziti suverenitet

Greenland and Denmark have affirmed that any agreement with the United States regarding increased military presence on the Arctic island will not compromise Greenland’s sovereignty, countering President Donald Trump’s earlier claims of “permanent control.” The deal, expected to be finalized during the U.N. General Assembly next week, allows the U.S. to develop a significant military presence on Greenland while barring U.S. adversaries from establishing their own bases or making sensitive investments on the island. Key terms of the agreement remain undisclosed, including the exact size of the U.S. military footprint and whether any formal authority over foreign policy or resources will be transferred to Washington. The agreement comes after months of tension sparked by Trump’s repeated assertions that the U.S. needed to exert greater control over Greenland for national security reasons. His remarks, particularly in early 2025, alarmed NATO allies and prompted urgent negotiations between Denmark, Greenland, and the U.S. to deescalate the situation. Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen expressed cautious optimism, stating, “Next week could be a good week, for Greenland, Denmark, and the United States.” He emphasized that the deal aims to strengthen regional security while respecting the Danish kingdom’s red lines and Greenland’s right to self-determination. Despite the agreement, some residents in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, voiced skepticism about closer ties with the U.S. Jakob Ludvigsen, a 65-year-old local, stated, “The U.S. should not control Greenland. I think it’s better if we have cooperation with NATO.” Marianne Hansen, a 71-year-old retired chef, echoed similar sentiments, saying, “Trump should stay far, far, far away from Greenland. He should not expect our children and grandchildren to become Americans in the future.” Denmark and Greenland have consistently maintained that the U.S. must respect the sovereignty of the Danish kingdom and acknowledge that Greenland is not for sale. They reiterated these assurances in multiple statements, emphasizing that the agreement does not alter Greenland’s status as a self-governing territory within the Danish realm. Trump, however, framed the deal as a long-awaited solution to what he described as a critical strategic need. On his social media platform, Truth Social, he declared, “The United States will FOREVER have the complete ability to do what is necessary in Greenland in order to secure and defend the security of Greenland, and the United States of America.” He further asserted that the U.S. would retain veto power over any foreign military installations or investments on the island, ensuring that no adversaries could establish a presence without American consent. Political analysts have raised concerns about the implications of the agreement. Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, a political science professor at the University of Copenhagen, warned that if Copenhagen concedes any formal authority to Washington, it could signal a shift toward a new form of U.S. influence over Greenland, potentially replacing the existing colonial relationship with Denmark. “This is the beginning of replacing the colonial relationship with Denmark with a colonial relationship to the United States,” he cautioned. Meanwhile, Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen confirmed that the proposed deal “recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our Kingdom and the right of the Greenlandic people to self-determination.” He stressed that the agreement aligns with Greenland’s interests and contributes to broader international cooperation. The agreement also marks a resolution to a diplomatic crisis that had strained relations within NATO and created uncertainty among European allies. A NATO spokesperson praised the deal, calling it a step forward in enhancing security, stability, and cooperation in the Arctic and North Atlantic regions. While the details of the agreement remain confidential, the U.S. has already secured certain rights through a 1951 defense pact with Denmark, granting it military access to Greenland. Under the new arrangement, the U.S. is reportedly guaranteed continued access and potential expansion of its military infrastructure, including the possibility of increasing the number of troops stationed at the Pituffik base on Greenland’s northwest coast. However, the agreement explicitly prohibits non-NATO nations from constructing military facilities on the island, reinforcing the U.S.’s exclusive strategic advantage. As the U.N. General Assembly approaches, the finalization of the deal will likely serve as a test case for balancing U.S. strategic interests with the sovereignty of Greenland and the broader Nordic bloc. The outcome will depend on how the agreement is interpreted and implemented, with ongoing scrutiny from both domestic and international observers.