Legal: GML denies 2011 agreement with GoG, participated in Govenrment trips, page-23

I had an incomplete sentence and could not correct, here is full:

So you nro say:
words "not use"
would mean
"not sell
to enemies of Greenland
or
to countries (possibly?) causing nuclear accidents
and being a threat to Greenland?"

One may consider how serious business would it be trying to define word in this way.
There is an expensive legal industry doing this for enormous sums of money,
in very long and risky process, if there would a suitable jurisdiction for that.

There are at least 2 reasons why it is not relevant anyway

1) It appears to be based on the article, that GML says
that they will comply not with the 2011 supplementary agreement

2) The major question is that why should Greenland participitate in such process
when the EIA sucks
and the project is hardly acceptable under EU law (as explained in the EIA thread).