Danish Opposition May Impede
US National Missile Defense

Use of key radar facility conditioned on
Russian approval of ABM-treaty changes

7 March 2000

By Joergen Dragsdahl

The future use of radar facilities at a US base in Thule, Greenland for
national missile defense can be blocked by veto from a close ally, Denmark.

That is the message coming out of recent debates in both the Danish parliament and Greenland's home rule parliament. Parties representing a  clear majority set Russian approval of amendments to the ABM Treaty as a  precondition for the upgrading of existing early warning radar and deployment of a planned new radar.

Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen on 25 February 2000 repeatedly stressed his government's "desire" for use of the radar "not to be in violation of current international rules". He also called a 13-year-old resolution by parliament, which prohibited use of the radar in connection with an ABM system, "a firm component" of Danish policy.

Greenland held its debate on 29 February 2000. The home rule government had already declared on 18th November 1999 that if the ABM Treaty were violated or if the US unilaterally stuck to present plans, then Greenland "can’t support plans for an upgrade of the Thule radar". The local parliament supported this position and will work for a countrywide debate to create backing for the government.

Broad consensus on the need for a US-Russian negotiated outcome was illustrated in the Danish parliament through three preconditions raised by Per Stig Moeller, a spokesman for the conservative opposition party: The  ABM Treaty "must be respected", "we want agreement between the USA and the USSR [sic]" and the home rule government of Greenland must be involved in any decisions.

Constitutionally Denmark is in charge of Greenland's foreign and defense policy. But a decision contrary to the stated policy of Greenland's home rule government is unlikely. Denmark’s old empire in the North Atlantic is under renewed stress with strong political forces in the Faeroe Islands demanding independence and similar trends clearly visible in Greenland. Moeller warned against a repeat of mistakes in Danish handling of Faeroe affairs where the home rule government was neither heard nor involved in significant decisions.

A coalition partner in Greenland's government is strongly opposed to "militarization" of the Arctic and often criticizes US use of the Thule area. Opposition is also voiced by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, an influential coalition of original peoples from Alaska, Canada, Russia and   Greenland. Further complicating US plans is a law suit by former inhabitants of a village at Thule. They were removed illegally in 1953 to free land for expansion of the US base. Last year a high Danish court granted them compensation but a trial now is pending in the Supreme Court on a demand for return of all their lands. Plans for use of the US base in violation of the ABM Treaty will, according to their lawyer Christian Harlang, be part of the case. The case has very strong popular support in Greenland.

During the Danish parliament debate the government presentation was criticized for reflecting only US policy on the alleged threat from rogue  states and the perceived need for a national missile defense. Also the need for amendments to the ABM Treaty, as stated by the Foreign Minister, was based on a somewhat misleading description of US policy. The Clinton Administration has, he said, assured that it is "legally" and "politically" committed to preserve the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone in strategic stability. And, the minister continued, the treaty cannot be changed "without the concurrence of both parties". He did not mention US threats to withdraw from the treaty if agreement with Russia could not be found.

Representatives of several parties stressed that NMD was not just an issue of importance for defense of the United States. Even Per Stig Moeller of the traditionally pro-American conservative party saw serious risks of a  destabilizing arms race if the US unilaterally went ahead with NMD. Two left wing parties indicated opposition to US plans even if a deal with Russia  proves possible. A couple of right wing politicians saw signs of  anti- American attitudes in opposition to NMD, but they were broadly refuted through reference to arguments against US plans from American experts.

Back to NMD Home Page