After months of threats, diplomatic tension and repeated assertions that the United States needed control of Greenland for national security, President Donald Trump has announced what he describes as a major new security agreement covering the Arctic island.
Trump celebrated the agreement as a breakthrough.
There is just one rather important piece of history complicating that story:
The United States already had extensive military access to Greenland.
It has had it since 1951.
The new agreement may expand American authority in some important areas, particularly regarding foreign military activity and sensitive investment. But many of the military rights Trump has spent months arguing that America needs — access, basing and the ability to defend Greenland — were already available under an agreement signed more than 75 years ago.
That raises an obvious question:
What exactly required nearly two years of threats and confrontation with a NATO ally?
The New Deal
Trump announced September 18 that the United States, Denmark and Greenland had reached an agreement addressing American security concerns on the island.
According to the administration, the agreement will provide permanent American access, basing and overflight rights.
Trump also said the United States would begin developing what he called a large military presence in Greenland.
The agreement reportedly prevents non-NATO countries from establishing military bases there and gives the United States and its allies protections concerning sensitive foreign investments.
Those provisions could represent meaningful changes.
But as of the announcement, many of the most important details remained unknown.
It wasn't clear how many additional American troops would be stationed in Greenland.
It wasn't clear where additional facilities would be located.
It wasn't clear whether entirely new bases would actually be constructed.
And it wasn't clear who would ultimately pay for them.
Yet Trump declared the agreement a “dream come true” for the United States.
Now Go Back to 1951
The historical context makes the announcement considerably less revolutionary than it might initially sound.
On April 27, 1951, the United States and Denmark signed the Defense of Greenland Agreement.
The agreement was negotiated during the early years of the Cold War as Washington and its NATO allies confronted the growing Soviet threat.
It gave the United States extensive military rights in Greenland.
America subsequently operated more than a dozen military installations there during the Cold War.
Most were eventually closed as American requirements changed.
One major installation remains today: Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base.
The base plays an important role in missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance.
In other words, the United States didn't need to acquire Greenland to establish a military presence there.
It already had one.
The Agreement Was Updated, Too
This isn't even a case of Washington relying exclusively on a forgotten Cold War document.
The United States, Denmark and Greenland updated the arrangement in 2004.
That agreement specifically addressed American military operations and facilities in Greenland and established procedures for consultation with Danish and Greenlandic authorities.
It also explicitly provided a mechanism for establishing additional defense areas.
So when Trump repeatedly argued that American security required greater access to Greenland, Denmark's government had a straightforward response:
Ask.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen publicly pointed out earlier this year that the United States already possessed broad military access under the 1951 agreement and could request an increased presence.
Denmark indicated that such requests would be considered constructively.
That is considerably different from needing to acquire Greenland.
America Once Had More Bases There
There is another historical irony.
The United States used to have a much larger military footprint in Greenland.
During the Cold War, American forces operated numerous installations across the island.
Over time, Washington closed most of them.
That wasn't because Denmark expelled the United States.
It was largely because America's own military requirements changed.
Today the United States operates Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland.
So if Washington determines that Russia, China, missile defense or changing Arctic conditions require additional American forces, there is a legitimate national-security discussion to be had about expanding that presence.
But that's very different from saying the United States needed ownership or political control of Greenland to accomplish it.
What Is Actually New?
There do appear to be potentially significant elements in the new agreement.
The United States reportedly gains stronger authority concerning military activity by non-NATO countries.
The agreement may also give Washington influence over certain sensitive foreign investments in Greenland involving infrastructure, mining and other strategic sectors.
Another potentially important change is permanence.
The original 1951 agreement is connected to the NATO framework. The new arrangement is reportedly designed to continue indefinitely, including potentially if Greenland eventually becomes independent from Denmark.
Those are substantive differences.
But they don't change the central historical fact.
America already possessed extensive rights to station military forces in Greenland.
And Then There Is the Cost
Trump has suggested that the expanded American presence will come at no cost to the United States.
Exactly how that would work has not yet been publicly explained.
Military installations aren't free.
Runways have to be maintained.
Buildings have to be constructed and heated.
Fuel and equipment have to be transported.
Personnel have to be housed, supplied and paid.
Communications systems, radar, missile-warning equipment and security infrastructure require continuing maintenance.
And Greenland is one of the most logistically difficult places on Earth to operate.
If the United States builds additional military facilities there, someone will have to pay for them.
Until the agreement's financial details are released, Americans don't know whether that someone will ultimately be the U.S. taxpayer.
A Long Route Back to a Familiar Destination
There may ultimately be good strategic reasons for expanding America's military presence in Greenland.
The Arctic is becoming increasingly important.
Russia maintains substantial military capabilities in the region.
Greenland's geographic position makes it valuable for missile warning, space surveillance and defense of North America.
Those questions deserve serious consideration.
But they also make the political drama surrounding Greenland over the past two years harder to separate from the agreement that already existed.
The United States didn't need to conquer Greenland.
It didn't need Denmark to surrender Greenland.
It didn't need Greenland to become American territory.
It didn't even need to start from scratch on a military-access agreement.
America had already negotiated one in 1951.
It was updated in 2004.
American forces are already stationed there.
And Denmark had publicly indicated that Washington could request an expanded military presence under the existing framework.
After months of threats and demands for control of Greenland, the final outcome appears — at least based on what has been publicly disclosed so far — much closer to an expanded defense agreement than an American acquisition of the island.
That may prove useful for Arctic security.
But it also leaves an unavoidable historical irony:
The United States spent months arguing about how desperately it needed access to a place where it already had extensive military access for three-quarters of a century.