The 1951 Greenland Agreement: Essence, Significance, and Political Risks

Evgeny Yushchuk
Евгений Ющук. Новости

The Greenland Defence Agreement of April 27, 1951, is a unique treaty, still in force today, concluded between the United States and Denmark at the height of the Cold War "to counter the Soviet threat through the Arctic."

Although formally signed "within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization" (NATO), it is essentially a bilateral agreement that grants the United States the exclusive right to establish and use military bases indefinitely throughout Greenland.

The key facility was the strategic Thule Air Base, which continues to play a critical role in the missile warning system and in ensuring North American security.

Legally, the treaty is closely tied to NATO, which determines its unique dynamics. As Danish Defence Minister L.L. Rasmussen noted, changes within the alliance itself could serve as grounds for renegotiating the agreement, but the reverse—the impact of the treaty's abrogation on NATO membership—is unlikely.

Denmark has consistently insisted that the treaty cannot be terminated unilaterally; doing so requires the mutual consent of the United States, Denmark, and, increasingly, the Greenland Home Rule Government.

However, the United States could, in theory, withdraw unilaterally by giving Denmark 12 months' notice, in accordance with international law.

Such a hypothetical attempt at denunciation by the United States (for example, as part of a review of its commitments) would create serious political complications on several levels:

1. International relations and NATO | Such a move would be a powerful blow to trust within the alliance, setting a dangerous precedent of disregarding multilateral frameworks in favor of unilateral force.

This would trigger a deep diplomatic crisis with Denmark, one of the United States' oldest allies.

2. Domestic political barriers in the United States | President Trump's initiative would almost certainly encounter fierce resistance in Congress, particularly from Republican senators who advocate for a stronger NATO presence in the Arctic. They could also be opposed by Pentagon experts who consider the Thule base vital to national security.

3. Greenland's position | The current reality is that ignoring the position of the Greenlandic government, which enjoys extensive autonomy, is no longer possible. Any decisions without its participation would escalate tensions and complicate any future dialogue on the island's status.

The paradox and fundamental problem exposed by the "Greenland incident" lies in the profound asymmetry within NATO.

The 1951 Treaty clearly demonstrates that, while the United States bears the primary burden of defending Europe, it prefers to resolve security issues for its own territory (North America) either independently or through similar closed bilateral agreements, excluding a "European dimension."

Thus, the termination of this treaty is not a mere technical legal procedure but a complex political act with far-reaching consequences for transatlantic relations and the security architecture.

Based on material from the publication "Monocle"

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Image: © N/A; facebook.com/DenmarkinUSA. In line with our policies, we address notices of alleged violations under the United States "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA). If you believe that your copyright has been infringed on our site, please contact us, and we will promptly remove your photo from display. AWIP: https://a-w-i-p.com/index.php/aW9Y