Naleraq chairman Pele Broberg believes that the new defense and security agreement between Greenland, Denmark and the USA should not mention Greenland’s future independence. He emphasizes that he is not against defense cooperation with the United States, but that the issue of independence has nothing to do with the agreement.
Naleraq chairman Pele Broberg believes that the provision on Greenland’s future independence does not belong in the new defense and security agreement between Greenland, Denmark and the USA.
At the same time, Broberg emphasizes that he is not against close defense and security cooperation with the United States. His criticism is about the fact that, in his view, the question of Greenland’s future status should be kept separate from an agreement that deals with defense and security.
The agreement was signed on 22 September 2026 by US President Donald Trump, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Naalakkersuisut chairman Jens-Frederik Nielsen. It reaffirms and supplements the defense agreement from 1951 and must form the framework for continued defense and security cooperation in the Arctic.
The agreement opens up, among other things, an expanded American military presence, new defense areas at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig and an expansion of the Pituffik Space Base.
Independence has no place in the defense agreement
One of the points Broberg reacts to is the provision on a possible independent Greenland’s future relationship with NATO and the current agreement.
The provision stipulates that Denmark and Naalakkersuisut must together ensure that an independent Greenland remains in NATO or, if necessary, applies for membership. At the same time, an independent Greenland must take over Denmark’s rights and obligations under the agreement.
For Broberg, the problem is that a defense and security agreement will therefore also deal with a future question about Greenland’s legal status.
He points out that the Self-Government Act is subject to the Danish Constitution, and that a decision on Greenland’s independence pursuant to § 21 requires the consent of the Folketing.
Therefore, he does not think that you can write in advance in an agreement with the USA how the Danish Parliament will relate to a possible future decision on independence.
– It has nothing to do with Section 21, and it has nothing to do with our nationality, says Broberg.
His conclusion is that the issue of independence should be kept out of the concrete defense and security agreement.
Defense cooperation is not the problem
Broberg emphasizes that his criticism is not directed at the defense cooperation with the United States itself.
He has previously argued that Greenland should be able to enter into a direct defense and security agreement with the US when Greenland becomes independent.
The point, according to Broberg, is that such an agreement does not necessarily have to be negotiated until independence has been formally implemented.
– When we become independent, it is not the day we start negotiating defense agreements. They were entered into before independence, says the basic idea in his argument.
For Broberg, there is thus a difference between preparing a future defense cooperation and writing Greenland’s future constitutional status into an existing defense agreement.
Criticism of Naalakkersuisut’s line
Broberg also criticizes the current coalition’s handling of relations with the United States.
He believes that Naalakkersuisut’s announcements and what he describes as a confrontational line over the past two years have helped to create greater distance between Greenland and the United States.
– Naalakkersuisut’s statements and confrontational line in the past two years have created a gap in the United States and caused concern in the country. Naalakkersuisut cannot see that it itself is responsible for the situation, he believes.
Self-determination and security
The new agreement recognizes the Greenlandic people’s right to self-determination, while at the same time describing how a possibly independent Greenland can be included in the existing defense and security cooperation.
It is precisely this coupling that Broberg is critical of.
He believes that Greenland must be able to cooperate closely with the United States on defense and security, also in the future, but that the issue of independence and Greenland’s future state legal status should not be preempted through a defense agreement.
For Broberg, it is therefore crucial that the agreement concentrates on what, in his opinion, it should be about: defense and security.
– It has nothing to do with Section 21, and it has nothing to do with our nationality.
