Agreement in Greenland: have the tensions between the USA and Europe ended?

BrusselsThe deepest transatlantic crisis of recent times was closed at the latest UN summit in New York. The handshake between United States President Donald Trump, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, and Greenland's Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, has sealed—at least apparently—the diplomatic fire started in January, when Washington launched a campaign of pressure and threats against the Arctic island. "In the Kingdom of Denmark, the United States has a friend and an ally it can always trust," the Danish leader stated.

The announcement of the pact caught many European partners off guard, as they were absent from the negotiations. The first reaction was one of caution and silence. But, as the fine print becomes known, the conviction grows that both Europe and NATO emerge favored, although the transatlantic relationship will hardly return to how it was before.

The pact revises the 1951 treaty between Washington and Copenhagen and incorporates Greenland as a third signatory. It establishes that the United States will be able to build two new military bases on the island, and also grants them overflight rights and the guarantee that no power outside of NATO will be able to invest on the island. It is a move aimed at curbing the expansion of China—which has been trying for years to position itself in rare earth mining and infrastructure on the island—and at containing the remilitarization of Russia in the Arctic.

In exchange, the White House renounces its sovereignty claims: Greenland's status as part of Denmark is maintained and the right to self-determination of the Greenlandic people is recognized. Furthermore, the treaty, which has no expiration date, provides that if Greenland becomes independent, it will remain within NATO.

The understanding gives the continent some breathing room and allows for the redirection of relations between Washington and the European Union, which had considered that Donald Trump's words "undermine transatlantic relations and carry the risk of a dangerous downward spiral." And at the same time, it is favorable to European interests. According to analyst Giuseppe Spatafora, of the EU Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), it is "a good agreement for Europe," since it binds the US even more to the defense of NATO's northern flank and increases the value of this alliance for Washington, thereby giving it incentives to remain there.

An open wound

But despite the official photo, the pact does not close the wound opened in transatlantic relations and trust between the partners remains deeply eroded. "It will be difficult to forget the previous elements of tension," argues Spatafora, who recalls that the escalation reached a very delicate point: member states deployed troops to the island, Brussels even designed serious economic reprisals, and Denmark prepared emergency plans to disable landing strips in the event of a potential US military incursion or pressure.

The director of the think tank European Policy Center, Fabian Zuleeg, finds it difficult that the agreement indicates a change in the White House's attitude. "We must understand that Donald Trump does not desire alliances: he is selfish and transactional. At this moment he believes that an agreement gives him a political victory. He can say: 'I have pressured them and I have won'. But the moment the narrative does not work for him, he will renege on the promises he has made," he asserts. "This is not over and Trump will want to continue pressuring because he always wants more," he adds.

The tensions have highlighted the divergences between European partners when it comes to addressing the standoff with Washington. Many partners have reacted with "nervousness" due to the "fear that a direct confrontation could push the White House to disengage from Europe and withdraw its umbrella of protection," opines Zuleeg. However, he defends that it has become clear that "the only effective strategy for negotiating with Trump is firmness." "Giving in or showing weakness does not guarantee at all that he will stop pressuring: in the face of intimidation dynamics, condescension does not stop the pressure, but rather feeds it."

In practice, the agreement will have few consequences for the defense architecture that Brussels is deploying in the region. The European Union's Arctic Strategy, just like the agreements to allocate more resources to Greenland, will continue their course. "They will continue to work both bilaterally and within the framework of NATO, and this is in line with the division of competences between the EU and NATO," says Spatafora. The episode, however, has highlighted the strategic importance that the Arctic island has and may have in the future, especially regarding critical infrastructure, climate security and supply chains.