Lars Lokke Rasmussen (00:26):
Okay. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen from the press. Minister Vivian Motzfeldt and I met with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio today. We came here following a number of... How should I put it? 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 US do more? What can NATO do more? The Kingdom of Denmark has already stepped up our own contribution by committing additional fund for military capabilities, not dog sleds, but ships, drones, fighter jets, et cetera, and we are definitely ready to do more. The US has already a wide military access to Greenland. Under the 1951 defense agreement, the US can always ask for increasing its presence in Greenland, and therefore, we wish to hear if the US had any further requests to make in this aspect. We would examine any such request constructively.
(01:57)
Greenland is, through the Kingdom of Denmark, a member of NATO, and has been that since the very founding of NATO in '49, 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 US 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.
(02:56)
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 defense 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. 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 the first time within a matter of weeks. And then, I will pass the floor to my colleague from Greenland, Vivian Motzfeldt.
Vivian Motzfeldt (04:14):
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 follows, and for that, I hope that you will allow me.
(04:31)
[Foreign language 00:04:33]
(04:32)
I think that our meeting today and our commitment to find the right path is something that gives us to be able to see forward. And by saying that, I also commented on what Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen already said, so thank you for that.
Lars Lokke Rasmussen (05:29):
Thank you. And then, I think we'll take a few questions. Tom from BBC.
Tom (05:33):
Yes, over here.
Lars Lokke Rasmussen (05:33):
Yes.
Tom (05:34):
Thank you very much, Foreign Minister. Just first of all, you talked about the working group, can you just give us a sense of what this means now? So what has actually been agreed you're going to do next, despite this, as you described it, fundamental disagreement? And you mentioned the dog sleds. In terms of what you've announced in terms of beefing up security in the Arctic around [inaudible 00:05:55] when you hear that kind of language from President Trump about [inaudible 00:06:00] dog sleds, how does that make you feel?
Lars Lokke Rasmussen (06:04):
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 sleds. While we also have dog sleds to our special forces, that's the way to... Otherwise, you couldn't come around in the northern part of Greenland.
(06:42)
But I must say that, of course, we share, to some extent, his concerns. There's definitely a new security situation in the Arctic and in 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 US 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 US decision. And 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 the US acquire Greenland, and that is absolutely not necessary. We have the longest-lasting diplomatic relation with the US than any US ally has, 225 years in a row, and we have a perfect framework which could be used.
(08:09)
And therefore, to answer your question, even though we wasn't so successful that we reached a conclusion where our American colleagues said, "Sorry, it was a total misunderstanding, we'll give up on our ambitions," there's clearly a disagreement. We agreed that it makes sense to try to sit down, on a high level, to explore whether there's 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 on social media, and this is actually the very first time where we could sit down at a top political level to discuss it.
(09:18)
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 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, a frank discussion among equal partners, and now, at least, we have to give it a try. Do you want to add anything?
Vivian Motzfeldt (09:55):
No. I think it's very important to say it again, how important it is from our side to strengthen our cooperation with United States, but that doesn't mean that we want to be owned by United States, but as allies, how we can strengthen our cooperation, it's all our interest.
Lars Lokke Rasmussen (10:21):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (10:23):
Yeah, thank you very much. Of course, I would like to ask this question in Danish, but let me do it in English here because of our colleagues here.
Lars Lokke Rasmussen (10:26):
Yes.
Speaker 4 (10:32):
Do you see any compromise ahead of you, you said it a little bit, could you elaborate a little on the possible compromise that there would be between the President's wish to acquire Greenland, or have control of Greenland, and the red lines that the Kingdom of Denmark has gotten by now? And if you also can tell us just a little bit about the approach that the Americans had to this meeting, what was their primary goal as you see it, was that to reach that end goal or was it an open discussion of how do we solve the security situation in the Arctic?
Lars Lokke Rasmussen (11:10):
Well, first of all, I don't think this is the proper place to elaborate on what could be a compromise. The whole idea and the reason why we asked for this meeting was to turn public debate, in a very black and white setting, into a discussion where there's room for nuances, and therefore, I'm pleased, even though we do not agree this is doable, while we, at the same time, should respect the Kingdom's red lines, at least it is productive to start discussions at a high level, and then we have to see whether we'll be successful or not.
(11:54)
I would say, and that is probably in comparison to some of the public debate, that the meeting took place in a very constructive atmosphere, where we also had, as I said, the opportunity to at least challenge the narrative presented by the American president, and I think that is a necessity if we want to have a proper debate. It was basically about security, and as I said, even though there's not an instant threat from China and Russia, at least not a threat we can't accommodate... For instance, Chinese investments, we have avoided that due to close cooperation between Greenland and Denmark, when you saw, like 10 years ago, the Belt and Road Initiative, the idea of Chinese investments and infrastructure in Greenland, we avoided that. So there's no Chinese presence in Greenland. But there's a concern, will that be the case in like 10 or 20 years from now? It will not, because our Greenlandic friends have introduced investments, green schemes, et cetera, and Denmark is, by all means, on the right side of history.
(13:20)
And therefore, we will also continue to do what we already have done. We have been stepping up. We have allocated almost $15 billion US within just the last couple of years to capabilities in the High North. We have been pushing among the Arctic NATO states for bigger NATO engagement. Honestly speaking, and now I can only point fingers at the former American administration, the US has historically been a bit reluctant. Hopefully, that will change now. There's a dialogue within the NATO framework, and we want to step up, and hopefully that could also accommodate some of the President's concerns. But it's not that I'm now saying everything is solved. It's not solved, we didn't manage, but honestly speaking, I didn't believe that that was doable, we didn't manage to change the American position.
(14:22)
It's clear that the President has this wish of conquering over Greenland, and we made it very, very clear that this is not in the interest of the Kingdom. There's a government in Greenland with support from three-quarters of the Greenland population. The Premier made it very, very clear yesterday that Greenland, for the time being and for the foreseeable future, will remain within the Kingdom of Denmark. And therefore, this is a common position that we want to work with our American friends and allies, but it must be a respectful cooperation and it must respect the red lines.
(15:02)
Should we take a very final question and then... Yeah, yeah. Come on. There's a fight going on now about... Yeah, okay, yes.
Speaker 5 (15:10):
I would also like to, of course, ask a question-
Lars Lokke Rasmussen (15:13):
We can do that afterwards.
Speaker 5 (15:15):
We can do that afterwards with both of you. So you say you have had a constructive meeting, you said you've been landing, I could hear the translation, it was a good meeting. But how do you feel about going out of that room without the threat being off the table? So we still have the American administration that wants to have Greenland be part of United States. And you say, last question, that, "Well, we hope that we can find a way." But how do you actually feel? It can't be very secure, isn't it?
Lars Lokke Rasmussen (15:45):
Vivian?
Vivian Motzfeldt (15:49):
I think that it's never been so important to initiate that we are allies, we are friends, we have been cooperated in many, many years, we have history together, so it's all ours interest to find the right balances. I don't think I can say longer than that. Of course, we have work to do in the future, and for us, the most important is that you find the normalized relationship we used to have, and it's very important. And I think that we have initiated so many times where we stand and our [inaudible 00:16:35] location and everything that is very important, and we do it as an ally, and we do it, of course, it's also our interest that [inaudible 00:16:51] positions and how we do it, that you do it on behalf of the allies.
Lars Lokke Rasmussen (16:58):
That will be the final question.
Speaker 6 (17:04):
Did the US-
Lars Lokke Rasmussen (17:06):
That will be the final question.
Mark Stone (17:07):
Mark Stone from Sky News. Can I just ask you about the emotion of this moment? What did the administration, what did Trump's team say to you when you presumably told them that you can't just take over a people, you can't just take over and acquire a nation? Did they appreciate that perspective, or for them, is this simply about security?
Vivian Motzfeldt (17:32):
I think that what we have been saying, that the meeting has been on a respect way, and we have shown where our limits are. And from there, I think that it will be very good to look forward, and this high-level group that is going to work together, as I'm already saying, that it's all our interest to find the right path, it's all according to the security in the Northern Hemisphere. So I don't want to say more than what we discussed in the closed meeting room, but I would like to have this... How do you say it in English? Hope for a more mutual understanding and trying to find the right balances equally from all countries.
Lars Lokke Rasmussen (18:47):
It is, of course, very emotional for all of us, and of course, particularly for people living up in Greenland, but also for people in Denmark. We have 17,000 Greenlandic people living in Denmark, it sums up to like one-third of the Greenlandic population, we have a lot of Danes living in Greenland, more than one out of 10, which just emphasize that Denmark and Greenland are integrated and has been that for centuries. And we look at ourselves as US closest allies. I've had this discussion with the President previously. In Afghanistan, we had exactly as many casualties as the US. And I know very well that the future is not necessarily about the past, but I think it is important also to have the past in mind.
(19:45)
And we are eager to fulfill our promises. And even though our view on the situation right now around Greenland differs from public statements in US, we share the concerns in the long-term perspective, and we want to work closely with the US. But it must, of course, be a respectful kind of cooperation. And we both took the opportunity, of course, also to express that it is not easy to think innovative about solutions when you wake up every morning to different threats. Whether that will have an impact, I can't say for sure. But I can only say that it is in everybody's interest, even though we disagree, that we agree to try to explore whether it is doable to accommodate some of the concerns, while, at the same time, respecting the integrity of the Danish Kingdom's territory and the self-determination of the Greenlandic people. Thank you.
Speaker 8 (20:54):
How concerned are you that Trump will try to take Greenland by force?