politics
The Arctic Circle Assembly 2026:
The Greenland-USA Conflict: Hopeful That Trust Can be Restored
Reykjavik (High North News): “We in the Nordics are kindhearted people. But America broke our trust, and it is up to them to rebuild that”, says Greenlandic politician Aaja Chemnitz. US researcher David Balton is optimistic about future relations between USA and the Nordics.
Published
Modified
The fresh Greenland-US agreement is the talk of the town – or in this case Harpa Concerthall – in Reykjavik. Several of the panels at the largest gathering about the Arctic mentioned the deal that was made public in September.
David Balton, who worked at the US Department of State and the White House, is now a Senior Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center Arctic Initiative, USA.
He emphazises that he “certainly does not speak to the current administration” but have hope that the new agreement will work in favor of the Arctic as a whole.
“My hope is that this new agreement will help us move past a sorry and troubling episode in relations between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark as a whole. An episode that has undermined NATO cohesion.”
Greenland real estate
To recap, President Donald Trump of the United States of America sparked a crisis in relations between the United States, Greenland, and the Kingdom of Denmark with threats to take Greenland by force if necessary. Matters went so far that Denmark and other European NATO allies sent military forces to Greenland, both to demonstrate solidarity and to deter a potential attack by the United States.
“My view is that President Trump's main motivation was simply to increase the size of the United States as part of this legacy. For much the past year, a group of diplomats from Greenland, Denmark, and the United States were quietly seeking a way to diffuse this situation. The agreement they produced appears to be an excellent piece of statecraft,” Balton explains.
“The United States could have done all this under the 1951 agreement, but at least a new deal makes these rights explicit”, he adds.
Extraordinary statements
“Of the remaining provisions of the agreement, several things jump at me", Balton says.
"The agreement mentions NATO and the North Atlantic Treaty area more than a dozen times in what is a very short text. It even envisions the possibility that Greenland will become independent and, if so, states that it will remain within NATO. I'm quite heartened by this. It reaffirm the commitment of the parties, including the United States, to NATO itself.”
These provisions are quite meaningful
Balton says that there are also some striking formulations in the agreement's preamble, confirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark.
“It recognizes that the people of Greenland are a people under international law with the right of self-determination. It also recognizes that the people of Greenland have economic, social, and cultural rights. That's not something the United States normally recognizes”, Balton states candidly.
Meaningful
The agreement also recognizes the need to protect the pristine environment of Greenland.
“At least on a political or symbolic level, these provisions are quite meaningful. And finally, it is not a real estate acquisition deal. It does not make Greenland part of the United States.”
Although the agreement clearly benefits Greenland and Denmark, that did not stop Trump from declaring that the deal is "tremendously good for Europe, the USA, and everyone else, including Greenland."
“I'm certainly glad he thinks so. And assuming that the Greenlandic and Danish parliaments each ratifies the agreement as expected, my hope and expectation is that the threat that the United States will attempt to acquire Greenland will subside, that relations between the United States, Greenland, and Denmark will improve, and that NATO cohesion will benefit as a result”, says the american researcher.
The end of fear
Greenlandic politician Aaja Chemnitz hopes to see an end to years of fear and uncertainty for the people of Greenland.
“Signing the deal was like being in a dysfunctional relationship for seven years, and suddenly we had to like the Americans. It's been a difficult time for many people in Greenland. People have not been able to sleep and have felt a need to keep the radio on to know if there's going to be a war in our home country. It really shows what a difficult situation it was for Greenland”, Chemnitz shares with the audience.
She was glad to see Danish and European soldiers in Greenland.
Unanswered questions
“It's a good agreement and around 90% of the content is predictable and was in the 1951 defense agreement already. It's great that a leader representing 56,000 people is sitting equally at the same table as a leader of 330 million people. It really shows Greenland is being respected as a country”, Chemnitz says.
She takes a moment to praise the diplomats, politicians, and prime ministers in Greenland and Denmark for all the work that has been carried out, as well as all the effort that has taken place behind the scenes. But there's still some unanswered questions for the Greenlandic politician.
“How many soldiers will there be? Will that also mean more Danish soldiers? Will this make things quieter in Greenland in a good way? Does it keep the peace in Greenland? That is a good thing for our society. But at the same time, we also need business development in Greenland”, she points out.
Chemnitz welcomes American business interest in Greenland but wants to ensure that it involves the right investment with the right intentions.
“With money comes interest”, she says.
Broken trust
Donald Trump’s threats leave behind a trail of broken trust, a shattered friendship, and a divided world. Aaja Chemnitz points out that such threats against Greenland have not been seen from either Russia or China.
Was it worth it?
“The threat that has been felt by the people of Greenland comes from the United States. And it will take time to build up trust again. We cannot just talk this out. It requires action. U.S. has to do something to rebuild this.”
Andreas Øshagen, a researcher at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute and the High North Center for Business and Governance, wonders whether the conflict was ultimately worth it for the United States.
“Seven years of troubled relationship. Was it worth it? Did the United States get what it wanted? Was it worth all the animosity? The obvious answer is no”, says Øshagen.
He believes it is obvious that this conflict has weakened unity within NATO, and says that trust must be rebuilt in this area as well.
“Right now, there is a lack of trust in the United States on a political level, and most NATO countries are questioning the U.S. commitment to NATO and European security and defense, even Canada taking that stance", Østhagen states.
Wake-up call
Trump's threats served as a wake-up call for Europe to become less dependent on the United States, bringing European allies closer together and ready to handle any security challenge.
“But for what?” Østhagen asks.
“What is the security issue that we need to tackle? The Trump administration's rhetoric talk about China and the Arctic has led to some confusion about what the security issues are, where they are, and how to deal with them.”
Iceland relief
Once the agreement between the United States and Greenland was a reality, it also meant that Iceland could relax.
“In Iceland there's a sigh of relief that this agreement has been signed. It allows us to put a finishing touch to an ongoing narrative from the Trump administration that has often mixed-up Iceland and Greenland”, says Silja Bára Ómarsdóttir, Rector at the University of Iceland.
She reminds the audience of the image Trump shared, in which the American flag stretched across Iceland.
"That made our foreign minister call the American ambassador in for a talk. These actions, even if they may seem minor in some contexts, carry weight when they come from a superpower.”
Kindhearted people
Global polarization worries Aaja Chemnitz.
“We used to live in this globalized world where we could all be friends and everything was quite innocent. Suddenly we saw the shift towards protectionism. We are good and kindhearted people in the Arctic and the Nordics, who welcome this global way of thinking. But it's also important to know that the Trump administrations way of seeing things, like women and climate change, is challenging fundamental Nordic values.”
Chemnitz looks five years into the future and does not believe much will change, even with a new US administration.
Checks and balances that were built into the US system to protect the it from errant rulers like Trump
“I think America First will stick. So, we need to find a way of collaborating, even though we see the world differently.”
Especially when the system of checks and balances no longer functions.
Not strong enough
“Checks and balances that were built into the US system to protect the it from errant rulers like Trump. Now we can say that this system doesn't hold, it's not strong enough. I worry that that the damage that has been done to the U.S. system of government will last longer than Trump's time in office”, says Silja Bára Ómarsdóttir.
Do you think the damage the Trump administration has inflicted on Nordic cooperation is permanent?
"No, I don't think anything is permanent," says David Balton, pointing out that past conflicts between the US and other parts of the world have been resolved, particularly after Barack Obama was elected.
A gift in bad wrapping
Aaja Chemnitz shares Balton's optimism.
“The attention towards Greenland was like a gift in bad wrapping. It was attention that Greenland needed. We were a white spot on the map that nobody knew anything about. Yes, I think it can be fixed, and I don’t believe permanent damage has been done towards the U.S.-Greenland, but also U.S.-Arctic relations”, says the Greenlandic politician.
“There's a lack of dialogue and trust, but I think that can be built. But one of the untold stories as part of defense and preparedness is also creating resilient societies. From an Arctic perspective, it's very much about making sure that we have business development, education and a resilient community, not only in Greenland but all over the Arctic. Especially in rural parts. We have to focus more on that.”
Not yet ratified
The agreement has not yet entered into force. It still requires approval from both the Danish and Greenlandic parliaments, and neither has set a date for a vote.
In Washington, no vote will be required. The deal is an amendment to the 1951 agreement and does not need congressional approval.
“I had a friend from South Africa who once say to me that American politics are much too important to be left to the Americans. His idea was that everybody else in the world should get to vote in US elections. The Americans should stay home and we all be better off”, David Balton shares with a smile.
“For better or worse though, it will be in fact the American voters who will decide upon their next president”.
