The permanence of the deal is a development from what was in place before, experts tell TIME.
“The old 1951 agreement was tied to the NATO treaty, and therefore contained the possibility that either NATO disappears, or Greenland or Denmark leave, and the agreement ends,” says Ole Wæver, a professor of international relations at the University of Copenhagen.
Meanwhile, the new agreement’s provisions regarding future investments in Greenland are noteworthy, but not groundbreaking, according to Taussig.
“On paper, it has advanced a few important security interests on behalf of the [Trump] Administration,” says Taussig of the terms. “But in substance, it’s not like the Danes were looking to move out on significant Russian or Chinese military infrastructure projects in the near term.”
Some previous attempts at foreign investments in Greenland were reportedly thwarted by the U.S.
According to a 2019 report from the Wall Street Journal, the U.S. urged Denmark to finance airports in Greenland to counter a Chinese proposal for two airport projects, which was ultimately withdrawn.
Read the full article here