- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
- cross-posted to:
- europe@feddit.org
Denmark has voted overwhelmingly in favour of a new defence agreement giving the US sweeping powers on Danish soil, including “unhindered access” to its airbases.
The deal, which has been strongly criticised by politicians and human rights experts, means US soldiers in Denmark will remain under US jurisdiction. It gives US soldiers access to Danish airbases in three Danish cities – Karup, Skrydstrup and Aalborg – and grants American soldiers and military police powers over Danish civilians at these locations and outside them.
If US soldiers were to commit a crime in Denmark, they would be punished under the US, not Danish, legal system in the first instance. The US will also be able to carry out military activities in and from Denmark – including stationing personnel, storing military material and equipment, maintenance, training and exercise activities.
Despite heightened tensions between the US and Denmark amid Donald Trump’s unprecedented push to acquire Greenland – a strategically vital part of the Danish kingdom – and reports US intelligence agencies were ordered to increase espionage in the territory, a broad majority of the Danish parliament (Folketinget) voted in support of adopting the agreement. A total of 94 MPs voted for the bill and 11 against.
AFAIK it’s standard terms and conditions whenever US has a military presence in another country, and we believe that presence is beneficial in deterring Russia - above and beyond NATO article 5.
I have no opinion myself beyond having read in the internal debate both “US soldiers are above Swedish law” and “Of course Swedish law applies to them” …
We had US troops doing rotations in Norway long before we made a deal allowing US jurisdiction on certain bases.
It’s quite (very) common to give some degree of immunity to visiting allied soldiers. Often, this involves that they will be tried by courts in their home country if they are accused of a crime.
These new deals are a whole different matter. They give full jurisdiction to the US inside their bases. The major argument against them is essentially that they undermine Norwegian sovereignty on Norwegian soil. For example, we have laws prohibiting storage of nuclear weapons on our soil, but if the US lands a plane carrying nukes on one of these bases, we have signed away our right to inspect them. Even if we knew they carried nukes, we’ve signed away our right to seize them and send them out.
My personal opinion is that these deals are a major infraction on Norwegian sovereignty, and are possibly unconstitutional for that reason.
Well both are kind of true. They must follow local laws, but if they don’t, it has to be enforced and prosecuted by the Americans themselves.