Denmark and Greenland this month rejected US President Donald Trump’s characterisation of a new security agreement as granting the United States “permanent control over security, and all other needs” in Greenland “FOREVER,” with Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen saying the deal respects Denmark’s “red lines” and Greenland’s premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen insisting the arrangement recognises “Greenland’s territorial integrity and its right to self-determination,” The Business Standard reported. The dispute over what the deal actually says — its full text remains unpublished — is the latest chapter in a rivalry over Greenland that is far older than this news cycle.
The history: The US has sought influence over Greenland since at least 1867, when Secretary of State William Seward considered purchasing it alongside Alaska. Washington built the Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base) in 1951 under a US-Danish defence agreement, and floated a formal purchase offer again in 1946 for $100 million. Greenland’s strategic value has always rested on geography: it sits on the shortest polar route between North America and Europe, making it central to missile-early-warning systems since the Cold War, and its ice-free coastal areas may hold accessible rare-earth and mineral deposits increasingly relevant to the energy transition.
Counterargument: Some historians caution against reading a straight line from 1867 to 2026; Greenland’s self-governance has expanded substantially since a 2009 Self-Government Act, and treating it purely as a strategic prize underweights Greenlandic political agency in shaping its own external relationships, including with the US, EU and Nordic Council.
Why this matters for Bangladesh: Arctic-adjacent great-power competition rarely touches South Asia directly, but it is a useful case study in how small, resource-relevant territories can find sovereignty tested by larger powers — a dynamic with echoes in how smaller states, including Bangladesh, navigate major-power interests in the Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean.
Confidence level: High on the historical timeline; moderate on the current deal’s implications, since the underlying legal text has not been published.
Related reading: Denmark, Greenland reject Trump’s claim of permanent US control under security deal — The Business Standard
