The proposed hearing - scheduled to assess the legal and constitutional implications of the US-Denmark defence cooperation agreement - is to be held behind closed doors, sparking outcry from opposition parties and transparency advocates.
“It’s a consequential proposal, and it’s clear the government wants to obscure the process,” independent MP Theresa Scavenius told the Ritzau newswire. “That is deeply problematic.”
READ ALSO: Denmark 'can end' US defence agreement if Washington leaves Nato
Scavenius is joined in her criticism by members of the left-wing Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten) and the environmentalist Alternative party (Alternativet), who argue that the lack of public oversight erodes democratic legitimacy.
They have found an unlikely ally in the conservative bloc. Rasmus Jarlov, a senior figure in the Conservative party and chair of the Danish Parliament’s Defence Committee, has sided with the minority, challenging the procedural legitimacy of suppressing scrutiny.
“If parliamentarians want to examine a proposal in more detail, they should be allowed to,” Jarlov told reporters.
The government, with the support of the centre-left Socialist People’s Party (SF), insists that a closed door hearing is needed to allow sensitive intelligence briefings, particularly those involving the head of Denmark's armed forces, Michael Hyldgaard, and foreign diplomats.
“We need a confidential space if the Chief of Defence is to brief us with deeply classified insights,” Simon Kollerup, defence spokesperson for the ruling Social Democrats, told Ritzau.
READ ALSO: Why is Denmark increasing military cooperation with the United States?
Jarlov has proposed a compromise dual-track format, which will allow a mix of public and closed-door hearings. Under this plan, legal scholars and constitutional experts could speak publicly about sovereignty implications, while military officials could present restricted information in a closed session.
Scavenius signalled openness to the model, calling it “preferable to a fully closed process.”
“The starting point was full transparency, but if there has to be a compromise, separating open and closed components is better than full secrecy,” she said.
The US-Denmark defence deal, a significant shift in Danish security policy, has faced growing scrutiny not just for its geopolitical implications but also for the domestic democratic principles it puts under pressure. With its plans for US troops and potential facilities on Danish territory, the agreement marks a departure from Denmark’s traditionally cautious approach to foreign military presence.
READ ALSO: Why new defence deal could mean armed US security guards in Denmark
The Defence Committee's next moves will likely determine whether the government can maintain its stance or be forced into a more open legislative process.
Comments