Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal illustrate geopolitical ambitions exacerbated during the Trump era. Although their relationship with the United States is different, these territories embody crucial strategic elements, where resources, sovereignty and geostrategic control converge.
Trump’s recent statements indicating that Canada could become 51e The American state, reiterating its interest in purchasing Greenland or even considering taking control of the Panama Canal by force, reflects an uninhibited and populist vision of international relations.
A strategic acquisition
Greenland, by its geographical position and its vast natural resources, is at the heart of Arctic rivalries. American ambitions regarding this territory are not new. The takeover offer made by Trump in 2019 shocked the international community. This initiative, perceived as a provocation, already clearly reflected the growing interest of the United States in the Arctic, a region coveted for its hydrocarbons, its rare earths and its key role in future maritime trade.
Trump justified his new moves with economic and strategic arguments, saying Greenland would be a vital asset to counter Chinese and Russian influence in the region. On Tuesday, he went so far as to refuse to rule out the possibility of using force to annex it. If Denmark has firmly rejected such a scenario, it illustrates Washington’s desire to reshape the balance of power in the Arctic.
A neighbor to annex?
Relations between Trump and Canada, historically partners and neighbors, have been marked by growing tensions. If the renegotiation of NAFTA (now CUSMA) highlighted combative protectionism, Trump’s recent declarations on the possibility of annexing Canada as the 51st state have revived debates on Canadian sovereignty.
These remarks, although perceived as provocative, reflect an expansionist and utilitarian vision of American foreign policy. Canada, with its vast natural resources and strategic role in North America, is an essential ally, but also a symbolic target for Trump’s populist ambitions. This posture calls into question the traditional dynamics of mutual respect between these two nations.
An issue under tension
A key infrastructure for global trade, the Panama Canal has been a symbol of American power projection since the beginning of the 20th century.e century. Although it has been under Panamanian sovereignty since 1999, Trump recently suggested that the United States could consider regaining control by force if the situation demanded it.
-The statement reflects growing concern over China’s growing influence in the region, particularly through massive investments in strategic infrastructure. The canal, as a global maritime crossroads, remains a key issue in the struggles for influence between great powers.
Symbolic violence
These statements, although provocative, are part of a strategy of symbolic violence characteristic of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) era. Rather than directly resorting to military force, Trump has often used populist speeches and postures to impose a rethinking of international relations. Greenland becomes an economic asset, Canada, a neighbor to integrate and the Panama Canal, an infrastructure to secure.
This approach, aligned with nationalist rhetoric, aims to reposition the United States as an undisputed leader in the face of real or perceived threats. However, this Trumpian geopolitics has exacerbated symbolic and diplomatic fractures, both with traditional allies, like Canada, and trading partners, like Panama.
Although it reflects a continuity in American ambitions, its uninhibited character and its ideological alignment with MAGA ideology mark a break in the modalities of exercise of power. These tensions raise questions about the long-term consequences of its choices, both for the United States and for global balances.
To watch on video
Canada
