Future use of radar facilities at a US base in Thule, Greenland for national missile defense can be blocked by veto from a close ally, Denmark. That is the message coming out of recent debates in both the Danish Parliament and Greenland's home rule parliament. Parties representing a clear majority set Russian approval of amendments to the ABM-Treaty as a precondition for upgrading of existing early warning radar facilities and deployment of a planned new radar.

The Danish Foreign Minister Niels Helveg Petersen on February 25th repeatedly stressed his government's "desire" for use of the radar "not to be in violation of current international rules". He also called a 13 year-old resolution by Parliament, prohibiting use of the radar in connection with an ABM-system, "a firm component" of Danish policy.

Greenland held its debate on February 29th. The home rule government had already declared on 18th November 1999 that if the ABM-Treaty is violated or if the US unilaterally sticks to present plans, then Greenland "can,t support plans for an upgrade of the Thule radar". The local parliament supported this position and will work for a countrywide debate to create backing for the government.

Broad consensus on the need for a US-Russian negotiated outcome was illustrated in the Danish Parliament through three preconditions raised by Per Stig Moeller, a spokesman for the conservative opposition party: The ABM-Treaty "must be respected", "we want agreement between the USA and the USSR (sic)" and the home rule government of Greenland must be involved in any decisions.

Constitutionally Denmark is in charge of Greenland's foreign and defense policy. But a decision contrary to the stated policy of Greenland's home rule government is unlikely. Denmark,s old empire in the North Atlantic is under renewed stress with strong political forces in the Faeroe Islands demanding independence and similar trends clearly visible in Greenland. Moeller warned against a repeat of mistakes in Danish handling of Faeroe affairs where the home rule government was not heard or involved in significant decisions.

A coalition partner in Greenland's government is strongly opposed to "militarization" of the Arctic and often criticizes US use of the Thule area. Opposition is also voiced by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, an influential coalition of native peoples from Alaska, Canada, Russia and Greenland. Further complicating US plans is a law suit by former inhabitants of a village at Thule. They were removed illegally in 1953 to free land for expansion of the US base. Last year a Danish High Court granted them compensation but a trial now is pending in the Supreme Court on a demand for return of all their lands. Plans for use of the US base in violation of the ABM-Treaty will, according to their lawyer Christian Harlang, be part of the case. The suit has very strong popular support in Greenland.

During the Danish Parliament debate the government presentation was criticized for reflecting only US policy on the alleged threat from rogue states and the perceived need for a national missile defense. Also the need for amendments to the ABM-Treaty, as stated by the Foreign Minister, was said to be based on a somewhat misleading description of US policy. The Clinton Administration has, he said, assured that it is "legally" and "politically" committed to preserve the ABM-treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability. And, the minister continued, the Treaty cannot be changed "without the concurrence of both parties". He never mentioned US threats to withdraw from the treaty if agreement with Russia could not be found.

Representatives of several parties stressed that NMD is not just an issue of importance for defense of the United States. Even Per Stig Moeller of the traditionally very pro-American conservative party saw serious risks of a destabilizing arms race if the US were to go ahead with NMD unilaterally. Two left wing parties indicated opposition to US plans even if a deal with Russia proves possible. A couple of right wing politicians saw signs of anti-American attitudes in opposition to NMD but they were broadly refuted through reference to arguments against US plans from American experts.