트럼프의 괴롭힘에 맞서 주권을 지켜낸 덴마크

[위종민]

덴마크가 트럼프의 bullying에 맞서 그린란드의 주권을 지키는 데 성공했는데, 이게 트럼프를 상대하는 국가들의 모범답안이 될 수 있다고 채텀하우스에서는 평가하네요. 

덴마크의 그린란드 합의는 강압보다 외교의 승리다

덴마크는 소프트파워를 활용해 지지를 결집했고 분쟁을 세간의 관심 밖으로 옮겼다. 도널드 트럼프 대통령의 받아들일 수 없는 공개적 입장 대신 미국의 근본적인 이해관계를 다루는 방식이었다.

전문가 논평

2026년 9월 24일 발행 — 읽는 시간 4분

2026년 9월 22일: 뉴욕 유엔본부에서 안보협정에 서명하고 있는 도널드 트럼프 대통령, 메테 프레데릭센 덴마크 총리, 옌스프레데리크 닐센 그린란드 총리. 사진: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

마크 웰러 교수

글로벌 거버넌스·안보센터 소장, 국제법 프로그램

이번 주 덴마크는 그린란드를 둘러싼 미국의 강압적 외교 국면에서 벗어났다. 9월 22일 발표된 합의는 덴마크나 그린란드 정부가 많은 것을 포기하도록 강요하지 않으면서도 이 영토를 둘러싼 분쟁을 깔끔하게 해결했다.

분쟁 이전에도 덴마크는 그린란드 내 미군기지 수를 늘리고 미국의 접근권을 강화하는 데 만족할 수 있다는 입장을 밝혀왔다. 이러한 조치는 이미 기존의 1951년 협정에 따라 가능했다.

새로운 합의는 덴마크와 그린란드가 EU나 NATO 비회원국으로부터 전략적으로 중요한 북극지역에 거점을 제공하게 될 대규모 투자를 거부하겠다는 약속을 추가한다. 이 점에서도 워싱턴은 이미 열려 있던 문을 밀고 있었던 셈이다.

유일하게 의미 있는 변화는 이 합의가 영구적으로 유지되도록 보장하는 장치와 관련돼 있다. 2004년에 개정된 1951년 협정 역시 만료되지 않는다. 그러나 새 문서는 그린란드가 독립을 선택하더라도 NATO에 남고 협정을 계속 준수할 것이라는 내용을 추가한다.

독립한 그린란드 역시 어차피 미군기지와 관련 협정을 유지할 의향이 있었을 수 있다. 결국 미국의 방위지원과 NATO의 안보보장에 의존할 필요가 있을 것이기 때문이다. 그러나 그린란드가 공동서명한 합의문에 이 점을 명시적으로 포함함으로써, 그린란드 전체 또는 적어도 미군기지 지역에 대한 주권을 요구했던 트럼프 대통령의 조건이라는 핵심 장애물을 넘을 수 있었다.

이 합의는 변화하는 지정학과 불안정한 글로벌 거버넌스의 시대에 덴마크가 전통적인 외교술을 이용해 강압을 극복한 모범사례다.

실제로 덴마크가 분쟁을 해결하기 위해 취한 조치들은 압도적으로 보이는 압력에 직면한 국가들이 어떻게 자신들의 이익을 지킬 수 있는지에 대해 유용한 통찰을 제공한다.

1단계: 강압하는 상대를 고립시키고 상황의 본질을 분명히 하라

올해 1월 트럼프 대통령은 러시아나 중국이 그린란드를 차지하는 것을 막고 미국의 국가안보를 보장하려면 미국이 그린란드를 “소유”해야 한다고 선언했다. 그는 심지어 이 영토를 군사적으로 장악하는 선택지도 거론했다.

대통령은 반대가 크지 않을 것이라고 생각했을 수도 있다. 불과 며칠 전 EU와 NATO 국가들은 국제법에 대한 명백한 위반이었음에도 베네수엘라에 대한 미국의 무력개입을 두고 트럼프와 공개적으로 맞서는 것을 꺼렸다. 이후 열린 유엔 안전보장이사회 긴급회의에서도 이들은 소극적으로 침묵했다.

그린란드 문제는 달랐다. 덴마크는 트럼프가 NATO의 미래를 위험에 빠뜨리고 있다고 명확하게 주장할 수 있었다. 따라서 덴마크는 미국의 행동이 덴마크의 영토보전뿐 아니라 서유럽 모든 국가의 안보에도 위협이 된다는 점을 보여줄 수 있었다. 이에 따라 NATO 국가들과 EU 회원국들은 백악관을 자극하는 데 대한 주저함을 극복하고 그의 요구를 강력하고 만장일치로 거부했다. 실제로 이들은 더 나아가, 표면상 일상적인 조치라는 명분으로 유럽 방위임무단을 그린란드에 파견했다.

서방이 푸틴의 우크라이나 침공에 맞서고 있는 시점에 무력 사용 위협 아래 국가영토를 넘기라는 요구라는 점을 분명히 지적한 것은 지지를 결집하는 데 결정적이었다.

2단계: 정당성을 갖고 분쟁에 임하라

이번 분쟁에서 덴마크는 국제적 공감대를 얻기 위한 경쟁에서 지속적으로 우위를 점했다. 덴마크는 정당성을 갖고 분쟁에 들어갔고, 글로벌 사우스와 관련한 정의 및 국제적 법치주의를 수십 년간 신중하게 옹호하면서 구축한 소프트파워를 활용했다. 반면 트럼프 행정부 아래의 미국은 군사행동과 대통령의 광범위한 ‘해방의 날’ 관세 같은 조치들로 계속해서 반감을 불러일으켜왔다.

미국은 그린란드와 관련한 덴마크의 이른바 식민주의 유산을 문제 삼으며 위선적이라고 비난할 수도 없었다. 1954년까지 유엔 총회는 그린란드가 덴마크의 다른 지역과 동등한 헌법적·행정적 지위를 바탕으로 덴마크에 통합되기로 자유롭게 결정했다고 판단했다.

1979년 코펜하겐은 자치권을 부여했다. 20년 뒤인 2009년에는 그린란드에 광범위한 자치를 부여했다. 결정적으로 이 2009년 체제에는 그린란드 주민의 자결권이 명시적으로 포함됐고 독립을 선택할 수 있는 조항도 마련됐다. 따라서 트럼프가 이전에 제안했던 것처럼 그린란드를 매각하거나 주민의 의사에 반해 미국에 양도하는 것은 기존의 자결권을 침해하는 일이었을 것이다.

이는 분쟁 전반에 걸쳐 덴마크가 국제적 자결권의 수호자이자 자국의 영토보전을 지키는 국가라는 역할을 동시에 주장할 수 있었다는 것을 의미한다.

3단계: 법적 지위를 명확히 하라

트럼프 대통령은 덴마크가 그린란드에 대한 명확한 권원을 갖고 있지 않다고 시사함으로써 자신의 주장을 강화하려 했다. 2009년 협정의 자결권 조항을 고려하면 이러한 주장의 중요성은 줄어들었다. 어쨌든 덴마크가 정당한 권원을 보유하고 있다는 점은 쉽게 입증할 수 있었다. 미국은 그 어떤 권원도 갖고 있지 않았다.

1916년 미국 국무장관 로버트 랜싱은 이 섬에 대한 덴마크의 권리를 인정하는 선언을 발표했다. 제2차 세계대전 중 독일이 덴마크를 점령했을 때 미국이 그린란드 방위를 맡으면서도, 이는 “그린란드에 대한 덴마크 왕국의 주권을 인정하고 존중하는 가운데” 이뤄졌다.

“덴마크는 대화를 대중의 시선 밖에서 진행되는 기술적 회의로 전환하는 데 성공했다.”

여기에는 미국이 건설한 기지지역에 대한 덴마크의 주권도 명시적으로 포함됐다. 전후 체결된 1951년과 2004년의 방위협력 및 미군기지 관련 협정 역시 일관되게 덴마크의 주권을 확인했다. 놀랍게도 미국의 기존 입장을 완전히 뒤집는 형태로, 새로운 2026년 합의도 이를 확인하고 있다. 문서는 덴마크의 주권과 영토보전을 재확인하고 그린란드의 자결권을 인정한다.

4단계: 긴장을 낮추고 전문가들에게 맡겨라

미국을 상대하면서 덴마크는 2025년 백악관 집무실에서 볼로디미르 젤렌스키 대통령이 겪었던 경험을 교훈 삼아, 카메라 앞에서 트럼프와 공개적으로 충돌하는 것을 신중하게 피했다.

대신 갈등이 고조되자 코펜하겐은 라르스 뢰케 라스무센 외무장관을 워싱턴에 파견했다. 외무장관이라는 직위상 의전적으로 대통령이 아니라 다소 온건한 마코 루비오 미 국무장관을 만나야 했다.

JD 밴스 부통령이 직접 회의를 주도하고 장소도 백악관으로 옮기겠다고 주장하면서 이 영리한 계획을 거의 망칠 뻔했다. 그러나 전직 덴마크 총리이기도 한 라스무센은 북극에서의 공동 안보이익에 차분하게 초점을 맞췄다. 동시에 주권과 그린란드 주민들의 권리에 대해서는 단호한 태도를 유지했다.

2026년 1월 말 다보스 회의에서 이 문제와 관련한 이른바 돌파구가 마련된 뒤, 덴마크는 대화를 비공개 기술회의로 전환하는 데 성공했다. 이것이 코펜하겐이 전체 사태의 위협성을 제거할 수 있었던 결정적인 변화였다.

5단계: 입장이 아니라 이해관계에 집중하라

협상 전문가들은 성공은 양측이 서로 양립할 수 없는 공개적 입장에서 벗어나 그 밑에 있는 이해관계를 다루도록 설득하는 데 달려 있다는 사실을 알고 있다. 이번 사례에서 트럼프 대통령은 그린란드 전체에 대한 완전한 주권만이 미국의 안보수요를 충족할 수 있다고 주장했다.

다보스에서 마르크 뤼터 NATO 사무총장은 적어도 그린란드 내 미군기지 지역에 대해서는 미국에 주권을 제공하는 방안을 제시했다. 트럼프는 이 제안을 받아들이고 침공 위협을 철회했다.

그러나 덴마크와 그린란드 대표들은 그 제안의 당사자가 아니었다. 주권영토의 일부라도 넘겨주는 것은 이들의 의회에서 받아들여지기 어려웠을 것이다.

하지만 기술적 논의를 통해 전면적인 주권 요구에서 벗어나, 그린란드에서 미국의 이해관계를 영구적으로 보호하는 장치를 확보한다는 미국의 근본적인 요구로 초점을 옮기는 것이 가능해졌다.

6단계: 승리했을 때 관대하라

합의에 서명하면서 메테 프레데릭센 덴마크 총리는 트럼프 대통령이 물러섰다는 인상을 주지 않도록 신중하게 행동했다. 그녀는 이 합의를 “영원히 지속될 수 있는” 합의라고 표현했는데, 이는 주권을 이전한 것만큼 영구적인 결과를 자신이 얻어냈다는 트럼프의 주장과도 부합한다.

트럼프 대통령이 처음 공개적으로 내세운 입장이 “그린란드의 소유와 통제는 절대적으로 필요하다”는 것이었던 점을 고려하면, 이번 새로운 합의는 차분하고 조용한 덴마크 외교의 분명한 승리로 보인다. 또한 NATO 국가들과 EU 회원국들의 단결이 갖는 힘을 명확하게 보여준다. 향후 강대국을 상대하는 데 필요한 교훈은 분명하다.

Denmark’s Greenland deal with Trump is a victory for diplomacy over bullying | Chatham House – International Affairs Think Tank

Denmark’s Greenland deal with Trump is a victory for diplomacy over bullying

Denmark’s Greenland deal with Trump is a victory for diplomacy over bullying

Denmark used its soft power to rally support and took the dispute out of the limelight – addressing underlying US interests instead of President Trump’s unacceptable public position.

Expert comment

Published 24 September 2026 —4 minute READ

Image — 22 September 2026: President Donald Trump, Prime Minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen and Prime Minister of Greenland Jens-Frederik Nielsen at the signing of a security pact at UN Headquarters in New York City. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Professor Marc Weller

Director, Global Governance and Security Centre, International Law Programme

This week, Denmark has extricated itself from a period of coercive US diplomacy over Greenland. The agreement announced on 22 September elegantly resolves the dispute over the territory, without forcing Denmark or the government of Greenland to give up very much. 

Even before the dispute, Denmark had indicated it would be content to increase the number of US bases in Greenland and enhance US access to them. These measures were already possible under an existing 1951 agreement. 

The new agreement adds an undertaking by Denmark and Greenland to refuse major investments from non-members of the EU or NATO that would grant them a foothold in strategic Arctic areas. Again, on this point, Washington was pushing on an open door.

The only meaningful change concerns the mechanism to ensure that this arrangement will be permanent. The 1951 agreement, amended in 2004, also does not expire. But the new text adds that Greenland will remain part of NATO and continue to comply with the agreement, should it opt for independence. 

An independent Greenland might have been willing to retain the US bases and related agreements anyway. After all, it would need to rely on US defence support and a NATO security guarantee. But expressly making these points in an agreement co-signed by Greenland overcame the deal-breaker of President Donald Trump’s demand for sovereignty over all of Greenland or at least the US base areas.

The agreement represents a masterclass by Denmark in using the classical art of diplomacy to overcome bullying, in an age of changing geopolitics and unstable global governance. 

Indeed, the steps Denmark took to resolve the dispute provide valuable insight into how countries can defend their interests in the face of apparently overwhelming pressure.

Step 1: Isolate the bully and call the game

In January this year, President Trump declared that the US would need to ‘own’ Greenland to prevent Russia or China from taking it, and to ensure US national security. He even raised the option of a military takeover of the territory.

The president may have believed opposition would be minimal. Just days before, EU and NATO countries had been unwilling to confront him publicly over the armed US intervention against Venezuela, despite it being a clear breach of international law. In the emergency meeting of the UN Security Council that followed, they had stayed meekly silent. 

Greenland was different. Denmark could clearly assert that Trump was placing the future of NATO in peril. Hence, Denmark could show that the US action posed a threat to both the territorial integrity of Denmark and to the security of all states in Western Europe. Accordingly, NATO countries and EU members overcame their hesitancy to upset the White House, and strongly and unanimously rejected his demand. Indeed, they went further, dispatching a European defence mission to Greenland, supposedly as a matter of routine.

Calling out the US’s game for what it was – a demand to surrender national territory under the threat of force at a time when the West was resisting Putin’s assault on Ukraine – was crucial in rallying support.

Step 2: Enter the fray with clean hands

In this dispute, Denmark continually had the advantage in the battle for international sympathy. It entered the fray with clean hands, taking advantage of its soft power, which has been nurtured over decades of sensitive advocacy for justice in relation to the Global South and the international rule of law. The US under Trump, on the other hand, has caused continued upset throughout, as a result of its military actions and other activity such as the president’s sweeping ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs.

Learn more about our Global Governance and Security Centre

The Centre provides analysis and problem-solving to improve global governance in a fracturing world order.

The US could also not accuse Denmark of hypocrisy over any supposed colonial legacy relating to Greenland. By 1954, the UN General Assembly had determined that Greenland had freely decided to integrate with Denmark on the basis of equal constitutional and administrative standing with other parts of Denmark. 

By 1979 Copenhagen offered home rule. Two decades later, in 2009, it granted wide-ranging self-government to Greenland. Crucially, this 2009 arrangement included an express right of self-determination for the people of Greenland, with a provision to opt for independence. Any sale of Greenland (as Trump had previously proposed) or its transfer to the US against the wishes of the population, would have violated this existing right to self-determination. 

This meant that throughout the dispute, Denmark could claim a role as both the upholder of the international right to self-determination, and the defender of its own territorial integrity.

Step 3: Clarify the legal status

President Trump sought to enhance his claim by suggesting that Denmark did not have a clear title to Greenland. In view of the 2009 agreement’s self-determination provisions, this assertion became less relevant. In any event, it was easy to prove that Denmark held good title. And the US clearly had none at all. 

In 1916 US Secretary of State Robert Lansing issued a declaration accepting Denmark’s claim to the island. When the US took over the defence of Greenland during Germany’s occupation of Denmark during the Second World War, it did so in ‘recognition and respect for the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark over Greenland.’ 

Denmark managed to divert dialogue to technical meetings, held…outside of the public eye. 

This expressly included Danish sovereignty over base areas constructed by the US. The post-war agreements on defence cooperation and US bases of 1951 and 2004 also consistently confirmed Danish sovereignty. Indeed, in an amazing reversal of the US position, so does the new 2026 agreement. The text reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Denmark and acknowledges Greenland’s right to self-determination. 

Step 4: Dial the temperature down and let experts do the work

When encountering the US, Denmark was careful to avoid a public confrontation with Trump in front of cameras, learning from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s experience at the Oval Office in 2025. 

Instead, when the row intensified, Copenhagen dispatched Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen to Washington. As foreign minister, protocol demanded that he should meet with the slightly more moderate US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, instead of the president. 

Vice President JD Vance almost derailed this cunning plan when he insisted on leading the meeting and moving it to the White House. But Rasmussen, a former Danish prime minister, calmly focused on shared security interests in the Arctic. And he remained steadfast where sovereignty and the rights of Greenlanders were concerned.

After a supposed breakthrough on the issue at the Davos conference later in January 2026, Denmark managed to divert dialogue to technical meetings, held confidentially, outside of the public eye. This was the critical change that allowed Copenhagen to defang the entire episode.

Step 5: Focus on interests, not positions

Negotiations experts know that success depends on persuading the sides to step away from their incompatible, publicly stated position and instead address their underlying interests. In this instance, President Trump had claimed that only full sovereignty over Greenland would answer US security needs. 

At Davos, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte offered the US sovereignty at least over its base areas in Greenland. Trump seized that initiative and accepted, withdrawing his threat of invasion. 

However, neither Denmark nor Greenland representatives had been party to that proposal. Handing over even a part of sovereign territory would hardly be acceptable to their parliaments.

But in the technical discussions, it became possible to move from a flat-out demand for sovereignty, to achieving the underlying US desire: a permanent arrangement safeguarding its interests in Greenland. 

Step 6: Be generous in victory

On signing the agreement, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was careful to avoid any sense of climb-down by President Trump. It is a deal that can ‘last forever,’ she said, reflecting Trump’s claim that he had achieved an outcome just as permanent as a transfer of sovereignty.

As President Trump’s original stated position was that ‘the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity’, this new agreement seems a clear victory for calm and quiet Danish diplomacy. And it plainly illustrates the power of unity among NATO states and EU members. The lessons for future dealings with great powers are clear.

[김유철]

이건 미국의 궁극적인 목표가 무엇이었냐에 따라 완전히 평가가 달라질 사안같네요. 그린란드 매입 같은 거야 진짜 이상적인 케이스고(뭐랄까 낚이면 로또고 아니면 분쟁거리라도 만들자 식의..), 최우선 목표가 북극권 전반에 대해 중국의 경제적 침투와 과학적 목적을 표면에 내세운 거점 확보 시도를 저지, 향후 그린란드가 독립하더라도 현재 수준의 미국의 영향력 확보가 보장되는 상황이었다면 원하는 것을 챙긴 상황이니까요. 그러니까 덴마크 외교의 승리라기 보다 트럼프식 외교에서 타협점 찾아가기 요령을 알아냈다 정도?
더불어 그간 등안시되던 북극권에서의 중국의 활동도 상당히 부각시키면서 견제분위기를 환원시킨 것도 그렇고..

[위종민]

원글에서도 다뤘다시피, 그린란드의 안보목적상 접근권은 이미 충분할 정도로 갖고 있었죠. 그 접근권의 기간을 바꾸는데 미국이 소프트파워를 많이 날려먹은 게 문제 아닐까 싶습니다. 중국의 접근권 저지라거나, 영구적인 접근권을 확보했다는 것도 사실 상황이 바뀌면 언제든지 바뀔 수 있는 거고..