Greenland parliament advances US defence pact despite unresolved questions

Greenland’s parliament has sent a defence agreement with the United States and Denmark to a second reading, despite unresolved questions about public information, environmental responsibilities and possible economic benefits, DR reported. No party was expected to vote against the agreement.

The Inatsisartut parliament held its first debate on the pact on Monday. It had previously been discussed only behind closed doors in Washington, more than 3,000 kilometres from Nuuk.

Can the agreement still be changed?

Opposition leaders Erik Jensen of Siumut and Pele Broberg of Naleraq criticised how the agreement had been negotiated, saying the public had not been sufficiently informed. Both parties said they supported the pact, while separating that support from their criticism of the process.

Jensen said the government should hold public meetings along Greenland’s coast to explain the agreement. He acknowledged that changing its terms now was unlikely.

Who will pay for environmental clean-up?

Politicians questioned who would be responsible for environmental damage caused by US military activities in Greenland. The agreement commits all parties to protecting Greenland’s nature and refers to two earlier agreements on the issue.

Broberg pointed to a 2018 agreement between Greenland and Denmark to clean up 17 former US bases, saying the work had been significantly delayed. Foreign Minister Múte B. Egede said the new pact sets legally binding terms for protecting the environment in future defence areas.

Will Greenland gain financially?

Broberg argued that Greenland would receive no money under the agreement and said Denmark could benefit by counting defence spending in Greenland towards its NATO spending commitments.

Justus Hansen of Demokraatit, who represents Tasiilaq in eastern Greenland, said security was more important than money. He said some people had moved because they felt unsafe, and that a sense of security was returning.

Egede rejected the idea that the government had sought payment, saying Greenland did not want to be treated as a commodity. No date has been set for the second reading and final vote.