NATO mission and trilateral negotiations to resolve conflict over Greenland

NATO has launched the "Arctic Sentry" mission, which consists of a series of military exercises and surveillance to strengthen security in the Arctic. NATO has announced this in a press release.

This is a continuous mission that in the long term will mean that NATO will have strength targets for the Arctic, and can thus increase the number of aircraft, ships and submarines in the area. A large number of countries such as Denmark, Norway, Finland and Canada are already in the process of rearming in the area.

Arctic Sentry is led by NATO's Joint Force Command Norfolk, which is described as the bridge between North America and Europe, which is supposed to defend the geopolitical strategic area between the two continents.

The decision comes officially as a result of Russia's military activity in the Arctic and China's increasing interest in the area, but unofficially as a result of the tensions that US President Donald Trump has triggered with his claim to ownership of Greenland.

An escalating crisis

According to many NATO countries, there has long been an interest in NATO increasing its presence in the Arctic. In addition, Trump's interest in Greenland has had the potential to develop into an existential crisis for NATO.

– The whole Greenland issue was on a track that escalated day by day. With NATO's involvement, a framework was set up that can handle security policy issues and that could stop the escalation of the crisis. At the same time, the trilateral negotiations are taking place in the working group consisting of the USA, Greenland and Denmark, says Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, referring to the current negotiations at official level about the USA's strategic interests and military presence in Greenland.

Unclear American line

Does it take some of the pressure off Greenland and the Commonwealth that NATO has set up a framework for handling security in the Arctic at the same time as these negotiations are taking place in the working group?

– Yes, it definitely does. We are now on a track that is about finding a compromise. But the US can still escalate the situation, as the US line is somewhat unclear. For example, when you listen to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he is more pragmatic and interested in finding common solutions than President Trump, who keeps saying that he wants sovereignty over Greenland, says Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, referring to the fact that as recently as Friday, February 13, Trump told the press in front of the White House that the US was currently negotiating about Greenland and “that Greenland is going to want us”. The next day, on Valentine’s Day, the White House posted a picture of Greenland in a heart with the text: “It’s time for us to define our situationship”.

A situationship refers to a romantic or sexual relationship between two people who are not lovers.

– So we are definitely not out of the woods yet, says Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, who assesses that the USA will probably continue to put pressure on Greenland and Denmark in order to have a better position in the negotiations. But we are in a better place today than a month ago. The next challenge for Greenland and Denmark is to make sure that you do not give the USA too much in the negotiations.

Negotiations on increased presence

President Trump's starting point is that he wants to buy or take over Greenland. If he cannot get that, he will probably go for an agreement that gives the USA more military and economic access to Greenland while keeping China and Russia at a distance.

– There could be both specific measures such as increased Danish military investments in Greenland, but it could also be that the US wanted Greenland to announce that they would not cooperate with China in the future, or that they would, for example, tighten their investment screening law so that it would more closely accommodate the interests of the US. But it could also be in the form of a further development of the base agreement from 1951, which could in some way give the US the impression that they are getting more military or economic access to Greenland, says Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen.