Donald Trump's announcement of a 'framework of a future deal' over Greenland has been met with profound scepticism from people in the Arctic territory, even as financial markets rebounded and European leaders welcomed a reprieve from further tariffs. The US president used his speech at the World Economic Forum to insist he wanted Greenland, 'including right, title and ownership,' but later took to social media to announce the framework and withdrew the threat of tariffs against eight European countries.
Danish foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said, 'The day ended better than it started. Now, let's sit down and find out how we can address the American security concerns in the Arctic while respecting the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark.' Italy's prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, also welcomed Trump's decision, but Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte issued a note of caution, saying there remained 'a lot of work to be done.'
When asked if Greenland would remain part of the Kingdom of Denmark under the deal, Rutte said the issue had not come up. A Nato spokesperson later stated that Rutte did not propose any compromise on Greenland's sovereignty during his talks with Trump. Trump himself gave few further details but said talks were continuing concerning a US missile defence shield partly based in Greenland.
There was anger from some Danish MPs, including Sascha Faxe, who was angered by Greenland's exclusion from the negotiations. 'It's not real negotiations; it's two men who have had a conversation. There can't be a deal without having Greenland as part of the negotiations,' she told Sky News. According to media reports, the compromise deal could see the US granted sovereignty over small pockets of Greenland where military bases are located, similar to the UK's bases in Cyprus.
The framework would also potentially allow the US to mine for rare earth minerals without seeking permission from Denmark, according to the Telegraph. However, Aaja Chemnitz Larsen, a Greenlandic member of the Danish parliament, said the idea that Nato should have anything to say about the territory's sovereignty or minerals was 'completely out of the question.'
