What’s in Donald Trump’s framework deal with Nato over Greenland?

After a week that pretty much shook the world, the Greenland crisis subsided just as rapidly as it blew up. But it’s far from over and, given Donald Trump’s stated desire to acquire the whole island, it may never be finally resolved despite his spectacular climbdown under pressure from Congress, European allies and financial markets.

A peace “framework” emerged from a meeting with Mark Rutte – Nato secretary general and “Trump whisperer”. As a result, Trump now says he won’t use force, has dropped his demand for “complete and total control of Greenland” and says he won’t use tariffs as a diplomatic weapon against Europe. He claims he now has everything he wanted…

No. Almost certainly he would have got all that’s now on offer in any case by using normal diplomatic channels – but the threats, and the crisis he provoked, left Nato badly fractured and Vladimir Putin delighted.

Given the legal framework in existing treaties between the US and Denmark, the shared security interest, the fact that Greenland – through Denmark – is in Nato, Washington could have negotiated a greater presence on the territory in all kinds of ways. Ironically, Trump’s predatory, erratic and disrespectful behaviour has left the Danes and the Greenlanders suspicious of his ultimate territorial ambitions.

It has not been published, but indications are there won’t be much to which Denmark or Greenland would object. This would include; a larger US army and naval presence; bases for a “Golden Dome” missile defence system; a strengthened force from Nato, and some mining concessions.

An underlying problem is that the framework was negotiated by Rutte, on behalf of Nato, with no direct involvement by anyone from Denmark or Greenland. This doesn’t inspire confidence, but a particular problem is the red line of sovereignty – the idea that Greenland territory would in some way be ceded to US ownership or complete legal control. Rutte has said he didn’t talk about sovereignty with Trump, but there are rumours that America might be offered “sovereign bases” on Greenland (probably military but possibly civilian in connection with mining of minerals). This could be problematic for Denmark and Greenland, and may require constitutional change.

A small enclave of land administered by another power, usually with a proper basis in international law. There are examples of these, including the US base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, established for about 120 years, and British sovereign bases in Cyprus set up as part of the independence settlement in 1960. More topical still is the US base on Diego Garcia, within the British Indian Ocean Territory; that is not a sovereign base as such, and is a shared facility with the UK, but it illustrates how a major US asset can operate freely on a non-US territory.

Not in practice, provided there’s a basis of trust. Where Denmark and Greenland need to be most careful isn’t so much with the military installations but the possibility of a US land grab to gain control of valuable mineral resources for financial benefit; such arrangements are in progress in Ukraine and Venezuela.

Similar objections have been raised about the “riviera” resort project for Gaza. Indeed, Trump’s motives in acquiring Greenland may be more about plunder than security; he said as much back in 2019, describing the annexation of Greenland as a “real estate deal”. Last year Mike Waltz, then national security adviser designate and now US ambassador to the UN, stated: “This is not just about Greenland. This is about the Arctic. You have Russia that is trying to become king … this is about critical minerals, this is about natural resources … it’s oil and gas. It’s our national security. It’s critical minerals.”

His track record suggests so.