Exclusive-Danish general says he is not losing sleep over US plans for Greenland
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) -The head of Denmark's Arctic command said the prospect of a U.S. takeover of Greenland was not keeping him up at night after talks with a senior U.S. general last week but that more must be done to deter any Russian attack on the Arctic island.
U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly suggested the United States might acquire Greenland, a vast semi-autonomous Danish territory on the shortest route between North America and Europe vital for the U.S. ballistic missile warning system.
Trump has not ruled out taking the territory by force and, at a congressional hearing this month, Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth did not deny that such contingency plans exist.
Such a scenario "is absolutely not on my mind," Soren Andersen, head of Denmark's Joint Arctic Command, told Reuters in an interview, days after what he said was his first meeting with the general overseeing U.S. defence of the area.
"I sleep perfectly well at night," Anderson said. "Militarily, we work together, as we always have."
U.S. General Gregory Guillot visited the U.S. Pituffik Space Base in Greenland on June 19-20 for the first time since the U.S. moved Greenland oversight to the Northern command from its European command, the Northern Command said on Tuesday.
Andersen's interview with Reuters on Wednesday were his first detailed comments to media since his talks with Guillot, which coincided with Danish military exercises on Greenland involving one of its largest military presences since the Cold War.
Russian and Chinese state vessels have appeared unexpectedly around Greenland in the past and the Trump administration has accused Denmark of failing to keep it safe from potential incursions. Both countries have denied any such plans.
Andersen said the threat level to Greenland had not increased this year. "We don't see Russian or Chinese state ships up here," he said.
DOG SLED PATROLS
Denmark's permanent presence consists of four ageing inspection vessels, a small surveillance plane, and dog sled patrols tasked with monitoring an area four times the size of France.
Previously focused on demonstrating its presence and civilian tasks like search and rescue, and fishing inspection, the Joint Arctic Command is now shifting more towards territorial defence, Andersen said.
"In reality, Greenland is not that difficult to defend," he said. "Relatively few points need defending, and of course, we have a plan for that. NATO has a plan for that."
As part of the military exercises this month, Denmark has deployed a frigate, F-16s, special forces and extra troops, and increased surveillance around critical infrastructure. They would leave next week when the exercises end, Andersen said, adding that he would like to repeat them in the coming months.
"To keep this area conflict-free, we have to do more, we need to have a credible deterrent," he said. "If Russia starts to change its behaviour around Greenland, I have to be able to act on it."
In January, Denmark pledged over $2 billion to strengthen its Arctic defence, including new Arctic navy vessels, long-range drones, and satellite coverage. France offered to deploy troops to Greenland and EU's top military official said it made sense to station troops from EU countries there.
Around 20,000 people live in the capital Nuuk, with the rest of Greenland's 57,000 population spread across 71 towns, mostly on the west coast. The lack of infrastructure elsewhere is a deterrent in itself, Andersen said.
"If, for example, there were to be a Russian naval landing on the east coast, I think it wouldn't be long before such a military operation would turn into a rescue mission," he said.
($1 = 6.3701 Danish crowns)
(Reporting by Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen; editing by Philippa Fletcher)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
21 minutes ago
- The Star
EU plans to add carbon credits to new climate goal, document shows
FILE PHOTO: A view shows wind turbines in front of a cow at Paradela's City Council, in Galicia, Spain September 27, 2022. REUTERS/Nacho Doce/File Photo BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The European Commission is set to propose counting carbon credits bought from other countries towards the European Union's 2040 climate target, a Commission document seen by Reuters showed. The Commission is due to propose a legally binding EU climate target for 2040 on July 2. The EU executive had initially planned a 90% net emissions cut, against 1990 levels, but in recent months has sought to make this goal more flexible, in response to pushback from governments including Italy, Poland and the Czech Republic, concerned about the cost. An internal Commission summary of the upcoming proposal, seen by Reuters, said the EU would be able to use "high-quality international credits" from a U.N.-backed carbon credits market to meet 3% of the emissions cuts towards the 2040 goal. The document said the credits would be phased in from 2036, and that additional EU legislation would later set out the origin and quality criteria that the credits must meet, and details of how they would be purchased. The move would in effect ease the emissions cuts - and the investments required - from European industries needed to hit the 90% emissions-cutting target. For the share of the target met by credits, the EU would buy "credits" from projects that reduce CO2 emissions abroad - for example, forest restoration in Brazil - rather than reducing emissions in Europe. Proponents say these credits are a crucial way to raise funds for CO2-cutting projects in developing nations. But recent scandals have shown some credit-generating projects did not deliver the climate benefits they claimed. The document said the Commission will add other flexibilities to the 90% target, as Brussels attempts to contain resistance from governments struggling to fund the green transition alongside priorities including defence, and industries who say ambitious environmental regulations hurt their competitiveness. These include integrating credits from projects that remove CO2 from the atmosphere into the EU's carbon market so that European industries can buy these credits to offset some of their own emissions, the document said. The draft would also give countries more flexibility on which sectors in their economy do the heavy lifting to meet the 2040 goal, "to support the achievement of targets in a cost-effective way". A Commission spokesperson declined to comment on the upcoming proposal, which could still change before it is published next week. EU countries and the European Parliament must negotiate the final target and could amend what the Commission proposes. (Reporting by Kate Abnett, Editing by Timothy Heritage)
The Star
21 minutes ago
- The Star
Immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on Friday granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on Friday morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. "There are not many specifics," said Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. "I don't understand it well." She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. "I don't know if I can give her mine," she said. "I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality." Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed U.S. agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the U.S. who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate U.S. district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On Friday afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating "an extremely confusing patchwork" across the country, according to Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. "Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?" she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. "Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason," he said during a White House press briefing on Friday. WORRIED CALLS Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on Friday from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. "He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution," she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the U.S. annually from receiving automatic citizenship. "It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights," said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organization United We Dream. "That is really chaotic." Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Betsy, a U.S. citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the U.S. from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. "I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born," she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on Friday from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wondersabout the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. "She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen," she said. "If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?" (Reporting by Ted Hesson in Washington and Kristina Cooke in San Francisco; Editing by Amy Stevens and Sam Holmes)
The Star
21 minutes ago
- The Star
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called "universal" injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. "I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect," said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an "imperial" judiciary. Judges can provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A HOST OF POLICIES That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in "class-protective" injunctions. "Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal," Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference," said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. "We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed." The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. STATES CHALLENGE DIRECTIVE The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. "As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups," Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, "recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case." Platkin committed to "keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War" of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. "The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by John Kruzel, Nate Raymond, Jan Wolfe and Trevor Hunnicutt; Editing by Will Dunham)
