From the article:
"Without the official text being released, it is unclear how exactly the deal differs from a 1951 agreement with Denmark, under which the US can send as many troops as it wants to Greenland.
The US already has more than 100 military personnel permanently stationed at its Pituffik base in the north-western tip of the territory."
But I’m sure the willfully uninformed will buy it.
Good PBS summary
US gets permanent military basing and overflight rights; Russia and China, and non-NATO bases are barred.
Investment provisions that effectively also bar China and Russia.
We in turn recognize Greenland’s right to self-determination.
Seems like a win for all.
As crazy as Trumpp’s Greenland policy was until now, I can’t objectively say that this isn’t a win for the USA and this admin.
He got what he wanted for the USA at great price… zilch. But I am sure the board’s T&D-S folks will dispute that.
What are the consequential differences making it better than the agreement that was in place for 70+ years?
Two specifically identified additional U.S. defense locations — Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig.
A formal pathway for additional U.S. defense areas and Golden Dome missile defense.
A much stronger long-term framework designed to preserve U.S. strategic access even if Greenland’s political status changes.**
He didn’t get everything he wanted but did get a lot of the strategic objectives he had talked about.
I don’t know that we didn’t pay anything though. We didn’t financially but there is a cost to the rhetoric.
Had those specific locations been previously requested but denied?
A “pathway” is just an agreement to agree without any meat behind it, for the most part. It’s good that they’re talking instead of whatever was happening before, at least.
What is stronger about the framework? Without some kind of specifics, this sounds like puffery more than substance.
There’s nothing apparently “wrong” with the deal, but the path to get there was garbage and completely unnecessary. The truth is that what he was really after was access to natural resources, and the defense stuff was just useful cover.
He certainly didn’t get everything he wanted. How much is going to depend on how much you take what he says seriously or think it’s intentional hyperbole. That’s highly subjective of course.
The deal definitely provides more legitimization for Greenland, which wasn’t a signatory before. It also seems to help lay the foundation for Greenland’s independence.
From what I can tell, the previous deal would have also permitted the US to build new bases, and in fact, one site was a US base in the past but was closed in the 50s. It doesn’t appear that there was anything prohibiting developing a missile defense system before, as that agreement allowed for the Cold War missile defense development.
I think the key difference that matters is that it addresses the development of non-NATO countries’ militaries in Greenland by requiring all three parties to agree to any such development (US, Greenland and Denmark). There’s no indication that this was going to happen, but it is good insurance. To my point about the natural resources, all three countries must also approve investments in Greenland mining by non-NATO/non-EU states. Denmark was already doing that, but the US didn’t have the contractual right to any input.
This definitely could have been accomplished without all the drama.
Who pays to develop those bases, mirror, mirror ? NATO or the country that’s already
over $40 trillion in debt ?
Our Nation is not $40 trillion in debt.
Look it up. US Treasury has the numbers.
Let’s not derail this thread with that argument again.
From an individual legal standpoint, a contract signed under threat is considered illegal. What’s the term …signed under duress - and is not valid ?
For countries, that have been defeated thru war, this does not appear to apply of course.
What are some historical examples like this deal, when an ally, being threatened by force, signs an agreement?
of course tump never lays out well the advantages for the usa in his foreign policy; this was a great deal for the usa longer term; wish he would do something on the panama canal.
Perfect example of the worst way to get to an outcome possible. Diplomacy? Nah, alienate all of your allies, that’s the ticket. Gets in his own way for no real reason other than being a jerk.
Terrible negotiator.
EXACTLY, some posters have not learned anything about negotiations. They are the same ones completely ignoring how the ccp has infiltrated Europe, Central America, South America and Africa.
Great deal, thank you for posting.