Denmark, Greenland push back on U.S. control talk (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: As President Trump has said that anything less than U.S. control of Greenland is unacceptable, let's go to the White House, where the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers have just met with Secretary Rubio and the vice president.

[00:00:11] Speaker 2: Remarkable public comments on Greenland and Arctic security. Our aim was to find a joint way forward to increase Arctic security. What can the Kingdom of Denmark do more? What can U.S. do more? What can NATO do more? The Kingdom of Denmark has already stepped up our own contribution by committing additional funds for military capabilities. Not dock slates, but ships, drones, fighter jets, etc. And we are definitely ready to do more. The U.S. has already a wide military access to Greenland. Under the 1951 defence agreement, the U.S. can always ask for increasing its presence in Greenland. And therefore we wish to hear if the U.S. had any further requests to make in this aspect. We would examine any such request constructively. Greenland is, through the Kingdom of Denmark, a member of NATO and has been that since the very founding of NATO in 1949, and is therefore also covered by Article 5. We have been pushing for quite a while in NATO for a stronger collective role in Greenland together with a number of Allies. And we are eager to work with the U.S. on advancing this agenda. And we are prepared to go further. Therefore, our aim was to find a common understanding on all these points and to launch, if possible, further in-depth work to deliver on them. On this basis, we had what I will describe as a frank but also constructive discussion. The discussions focused on how to ensure the long-term security in Greenland. And here our perspectives continue to differ, I must say. The President has made his view clear. And we have a different position. We, the Kingdom of Denmark, continue to believe that also the long-term security of Greenland can be ensured inside the current framework, the 1951 Agreement on the Defence of Greenland, as well as the NATO Treaty. For us, ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are, of course, totally unacceptable. And we therefore still have a fundamental disagreement. But we also agree to disagree. And therefore we will, however, continue to talk. We have decided to form a high-level working group to explore if we can find a common way forward. The group, in our view, should focus on how to address the American security concerns, while at the same time respecting the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark. We expect that such a group will meet for a first time within a matter of weeks. And then I will pass the floor to my colleague from Greenland, Vivian Muspert.

[00:03:34] Speaker 3: Thank you so much. Not repeating what's already been said here. So I would like to say something in my own language, because there are many, many people in Greenland that follow. And for that, I hope that you will allow me.

[00:03:52] Speaker 4: So we've been listening to the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland at the Danish Embassy following their meeting at the White House with Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. There the Danish foreign minister is saying that this was a frank but positive conversation, saying that perspectives continue to differ. We're going to agree to disagree. It sounds like the representatives for President Trump maintain his position that there is no other option but a U.S. takeover of Greenland. Effectively, the foreign minister there is saying that they don't see it that way. They believe that they can maintain the long-term security of the territory with the current agreement that's in place, saying that the U.S. already has vested interests and ample opportunities to expand its role in Greenland.

[00:04:46] Speaker 1: Let's listen back into the Greenlandic foreign minister. She's now speaking in English.

[00:04:50] Speaker 2: I'm going to take a few questions, Tom, from BBC. Yes.

[00:05:08] Speaker 5: Q Thank you very much, Prime Minister.

[00:05:24] Speaker 2: Well, that's actually quite a few questions at the same time. Well, I have known the president for quite a while, also in my former capacity as prime minister in Denmark, and I know his approach. But I must say, even though he addressed things quite differently from what I would have done myself, there's also always a bit of truth in what he's saying, not about the dog slays. Well, we also have dog slays to our special forces. That's the way to – otherwise you couldn't come around in the northern part of Greenland. But I must say that, of course, we share to some extent his concerns. There is definitely a new security situation in the Arctic and the high north. All of us, transatlantic, took the peace dividend years ago, and we have the vision of keeping Arctic as a low-tension region. That's probably also why the U.S. themselves have decided to have a much softer footprint in Greenland. During the Cold War, at some stage, they had 17 different military installations and military bases. Now they only have one. They had like 10,000 personnel in Greenland. Now they have around 200. That's not our decision. That's a U.S. decision. Now the situation is entirely different. And of course, we have to respond to this. The big difference is whether that must lead to a situation where U.S. acquire Greenland, and that is absolutely not necessary. We have the longest-lasting diplomatic relation with U.S. that any U.S. ally has. Two hundred and twenty-five years in a row. And we have a perfect framework which could be used. And therefore, to answer your question, even though we wasn't so successful that we reached a conclusion where our American colleagues said, oh, sorry, it was totally misunderstanding. We gave up on our ambitions. There's clearly a disagreement. We agree that it makes sense to try to sit down on a high level to explore whether there is possibilities to accommodate the concerns of the President while we at the same time respect the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark. So this is the work we will start. Whether that is doable, I don't know. I hope, and I would like to express that, that it could take down the temperature. We have now had like 13 months with this ongoing discussions in social media, and this is actually the very first time where we could sit down at a top political level to discuss it. And it was a great opportunity also for Vivian and I to go up against the narrative, because it is not a true narrative that we have, you know, Chinese warships all around the place. According to our intelligence, we haven't had a Chinese warship in Greenland for a decade or so. So from that perspective, it was a very constructive meeting. As I said, frank discussion among equal partners, and now at least we have to give it a try. Do you want to add anything?

[00:09:16] Speaker 3: No, I think it's very important to say it again that how important it is from our side to strengthen our cooperation with the United States. But that doesn't mean that we want to be owned by the United States. But as allies, how we can strengthen our cooperation, it's all our interest.