So i read the documents and compare it so lets explaint it. >Long story short - which may surprise some - the Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland.Let's look into what changed compared to the 1951 deal.>1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one "does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent." >It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state "affirmatively assume[s] all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement."
>>543142754>2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can "modernize and expand its activities" at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and "shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig." Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of "the American continent," a US interest rather than a NATO one.Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that "the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland" and that consultations are then held "to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement." What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement.>Article VII also gives the US "the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use" of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases.
>>543142801>3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny.>The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US "may enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea," but only "in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland.">The new one says: "the United States of America shall enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea.">That's it: "May" becomes "shall," and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules "issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland." The US also gets something new on top: "undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters," i.e. submarines.
>>543142842>4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause.>5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. "States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state" (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), "shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information...within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties."Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned.
>>543142866>6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US. The 1951 agreement existed only "for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." The new one lists the defense of "the American continent" as an objective, celebrates "the irreplaceable role" of the United States military as well as "the United States' indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland," and names the establishment of Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense system as a key goal.So, to sum up:- The US secured a permanent military foothold that even an independent Greenland would inherit whether it likes it or not- The US now has veto power over any non-NATO military presence in Greenland, and over who can invest in its strategic infrastructure and resources (beyond NATO and the EU)- Denmark signed away its say over the principle of new US bases, with only the right to discuss the "implementation details"- Danish authorities no longer set the rules for US military movement across the island- And all of it is now justified by the defense of "the American continent"I don't know in which universe this even remotely "recognizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom and the Greenlandic people's right to self-determination," as Danish PM Mette Frederiksen put it (https://stm.dk/en/press/press-releases/expected-agreement-on-strengthened-security-in-the-arctic-and-the-north-atlantic-area).Yes, the preamble of the text cynically "reaffirms" Danish sovereignty but, in my book, when you let a foreign country put bases on your soil, move its troops without following your rules and veto who else can come in, in perpetuity, after it spent two years threatening to take you by force, the word for that is anything but "recognized sovereignty"
>>543142904Who cares? Europe is occupied by US since WW2
>>543144781Well it's that people Say it's the sane deal for some reason
>>543142754.Greenland's permanently under the White Far Right Hyperborean USA control. No loopholes here.
>>543144855US literally used EU countries to attack Iran just recently making them legitimate targets.They're not sovereign states
>>543144910Ey i don't like that term since that means they are victims somehow and this is an one sided thing while it's not lel
>>543142754question who does greenland respond to denmark or usa?also what happens if greenland doesn't uphold the deal? they get a failed military operation from usa?
>>543145098What I meant US OWNS EU anyway so it doesn't change anything.Denmark is extremely close to UK which is like cancer growing legs, nothing surprising they went for it.UK still thinks US is somehow the continuation of their power.
>>543145174>who does greenland respond to denmark or usa?In internal matters denmark on outside invest and security US, pretty much it became a quasi Puerto Rico
>>543145313so americans don't get to decide anything and they are going to defend greenland for free?seems like a win for denmark
op is a jew in argentina to light more fires and purchase the burnt land.
>>543145477>americans don't get to decide anythingNo they decide on who invest, who stract (mostly them) and who get in and out om their sea, closing their sources market from NATO countries, china and Russia (the new agreement means they protect it from Non-American investment, include europe), pretty much virtual control on what makes a country a sovereign place.
>>543145752how many investments did china and russia have in greenland before this agreement?
>>543145727But i live here what i can burn?
>>543145810China try this year but US block it and with the new deal it's pretty much death, like i Say the new deals not only mean they have a Beto on china and Russia, they Even have a Beto on *Europe NATO* contries, from an american pov rather than nato.
>>543145981>they have never done it but this time is different
>>543146066But they do xd
>>543142754More or less it makes greenland the US's in all but name.Major points are>US gets to station troops there>Non nato cant station troops there>Non nato countries cant even have critical industries there IE mining and shitBasically what it amounts to is anything that happens in greenland, the US needs to ok first, china and russia fuck off.
Question:Couldn't he have gotten that deal easier without being a complete asshole?
>>543146222Yeah probably but would be slower
>>543146203In all but name and no vote rights tho
>>543146148so usa could already stop china from building what changed then?
>>543146381Sure. We all know you get the best deals if you insult your "partner" then threaten him with military intervention and invasion.
>>543146500What changed is that they don't even need denmark Beto or permissions from their parlament, pretty much striped away denmark voice in any virtual change on their soil. Unlike for exemple Canada that have Big deals with china despide US concerns, now denmark elite can't Even choose.
>>543146648but did they have any deals before anon?if they didn't then what changed?
>>543146203No. The us can’t build anything without asking, and don’t have Veto rights.The text commits Denmark and Greenland to consult with US if a country outside the western world wants to invest in significant way. This is not relevant. There has been no interest from anyone, not even US, to extract minerals in Greenland, because it is to expensive.This is what you got:• No non-NATO bases allowed.• Greenland is named as the actual partner, not just as a vassal of Denmark.• Various minor changes to expand allowed US installations to include modern technology.• US has to give local Greenlandic preference for commercial contracts (construction, maintenance, service, etc).• Adds environmental protections to the land.• Adds a more concrete method of dispute resolution.
>>543146767They don't even need denmark aprovals for *anything*, not only china or Russia deals, for literally *anything* and US can nos extract *anything* they want now, Thats what changed
>>543146850but china didn't have any investments or bases already so nothing changed other than usa footing the defense bill
>>543146850That's just not true
>>543142754Based thread, OP
>>543142754Danes should just cancel the deal, not like those retards can do anything about it
>>543142754This is a legitimate Trump win for the USA whether my fellow countrymen want to admit it or not.
>>543142754THIS IS A BIG NOTHING BURGER TRUMP FAILED....BTW YES IM VERY ANGRY AT THIS DESPITE IT BEING A BIG NOTHING BURGER!!!
>>543146500>nigger can't read the fucking threadGet the fuck out of here kike
>>543145098EU are victims tho
>>543142754Can we sign too
>>543148866checked yup I feel a lot more comfy surrounded by burgers unironnicly
