Analysis by Aaron Blake
After President Donald Trump said suddenly Wednesday that he had secured the “framework of a future deal” on Greenland, nearly everyone involved was conspicuously tight-lipped about what it entailed.
Asked to detail the terms, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte simply referred to Trump’s social media post, which included almost none.
When CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked Trump whether it met his demand to own Greenland, he paused and avoided the question. He said instead, “It’s a long-term deal.” He called it “infinite,” and said, “It’s a deal that’s forever.”
That response appears to be telling in more than one way.
Not only did Trump tellingly avoid the question about his central demand (which he appears to have folded on), but he referred to an aspect of the framework that … already exists in a security agreement the US has with Denmark, which controls Greenland.
That deal, which was forged in 1951, already allowed for an American military presence on Greenland in perpetuity. Yet Trump keeps talking about that as if it’s a major advance.
“There’s no time limit,” he repeated Thursday morning on Fox Business Network.
Indeed, while we have much to learn about the details, and the details still need to be ironed out – CNN reported Thursday that no actual document exists yet — much of what we have learned sounds a lot like what the United States already had.
And that, in turn, makes it look a whole lot like Trump folded – or TACOed, as is the current parlance.
Here’s what we think we know about the framework, which is still just a verbal understanding between Trump and Rutte
When it comes to sovereignty over US bases, the 1951 deal already allowed the United States to “exercise exclusive jurisdiction over (its) defense areas in Greenland.” (There were some updates to the deal in 2004.)
Asked to detail the terms, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte simply referred to Trump’s social media post, which included almost none.
When CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked Trump whether it met his demand to own Greenland, he paused and avoided the question. He said instead, “It’s a long-term deal.” He called it “infinite,” and said, “It’s a deal that’s forever.”
That response appears to be telling in more than one way.
Not only did Trump tellingly avoid the question about his central demand (which he appears to have folded on), but he referred to an aspect of the framework that … already exists in a security agreement the US has with Denmark, which controls Greenland.
That deal, which was forged in 1951, already allowed for an American military presence on Greenland in perpetuity. Yet Trump keeps talking about that as if it’s a major advance.
“There’s no time limit,” he repeated Thursday morning on Fox Business Network.
Indeed, while we have much to learn about the details, and the details still need to be ironed out – CNN reported Thursday that no actual document exists yet — much of what we have learned sounds a lot like what the United States already had.
And that, in turn, makes it look a whole lot like Trump folded – or TACOed, as is the current parlance.
Here’s what we think we know about the framework, which is still just a verbal understanding between Trump and Rutte
- It involves discussions about updating that 1951 deal.
- Trump claimed it would allow for “total access” for defense – including the placement of the Golden Dome defense system, similar to Israel’s.
- The updated deal could include specific provisions barring Beijing and Moscow from operating in Greenland, suggested a NATO spokesperson.
- It also appears to involve an enhanced role for NATO in Greenland.
- There are conflicting signals about whether the deal includes increased US access to Greenland’s minerals, which Trump has also floated as a priority.
When it comes to sovereignty over US bases, the 1951 deal already allowed the United States to “exercise exclusive jurisdiction over (its) defense areas in Greenland.” (There were some updates to the deal in 2004.)
The Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, in northern Greenland on October 4, 2023. Thomas Traasdahl/AFP/Getty Images
As long as it didn’t violate Danish sovereignty, the US was allowed to improve and develop the defense areas, install and maintain equipment, station personnel, provide security, have post offices and commissary stores, and control the comings, goings and operation of ships and aircraft.
The agreement also gave the United States free reign to travel between the defense areas. And it even said the laws of Denmark couldn’t be used to prevent key personnel and their families from entering or exiting the defense areas.
It’s possible the new agreement could include even more US free reign. But that’s already an extensive amount.
As for the other pieces above, it’s unclear what among them couldn’t have been negotiated without Trump’s threats of military invasion or other forms of coercion, like his recent tariffs announcement, which inflamed Europe and plunged the markets before he withdrew that threat.
Indeed, Greenland, Denmark and other relevant countries had signaled repeatedly that they were already open to negotiating over such issues.
Greenlandic Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt said earlier this month that Greenland was committed to finding the “right path” and to strengthening security cooperation. Nordic leaders including Denmark’s foreign minister said way back on January 6 that the 1951 agreement “offers opportunities for increased security cooperation.”
To the extent Trump wants to keep Russia and China out of Greenland, there is no indication that anybody would have resisted that – and given Denmark’s presence in NATO, there’s plenty of reason to believe it would have been amenable.
Negotiators had also reportedly broached the topic of mineral rights weeks ago. And it’s not clear how big a concession that even is, given mining them could prove extremely difficult.
Just last week, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell was apoplectic on this point.
“I have yet to hear from this administration a single thing we need from Greenland that this sovereign people is not already willing to grant us,” McConnell said.
But Trump rejected these entreaties, insisting that it was ownership or bust.
“Anything less than that is unacceptable,” the president said in a social media post.
In an interview two weeks ago, the New York Times pressed Trump on the already existing 1951 agreement, and Trump doubled down on the need for ownership.
“Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success,” he said. “I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base.”
It’s too soon to know for sure, but it seems like Trump may not get the thing he swore that he needed – full control of Greenland.
A document detailing the specific terms of a new deal is expected to be hammered out at the next meeting of the US-Denmark-Greenland working group — as soon as next week, CNN has reported.
But it’s also worth reflecting on the costs to get here.
Brutal tactics were used and political and foreign capital expended to achieve what seems to be only modest changes that could have been won in other ways.
Trump rocked the Western alliance in ways that could reverberate for years to come, if allies decide they can no longer count on or trust the United States. Canadian and European leaders said some remarkable things this week, starting to make the case for decoupling from the United States and almost treating it as a rogue actor that can’t be trusted to act outside of its self-interest.
Judging by the modest details known so far about the Greenland framework, that new paradigm could be the most significant result of this whole ugly episode.
No comments:
Post a Comment