America First – Before his inauguration, this Monday, January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump made deliberately and usually provocative remarks concerning the annexation of Canada – “the 51 State” – as well as the Panama Canal and Greenland. An expansionist threat with a strong political and strategic content.
***
As for Canada, which shares some 8,900 km with its Yankee neighbor, this is a major crisis coupled with another internal one, with the instability caused by the resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, at the head of the executive since ten years. His father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, then Prime Minister, remarked during his visit to former American President Richard Nixon that “being a neighbor is a bit like sleeping with an elephant: even if the beast is friendly and placid, (…), we undergo each of his movements and his grunts”. Ottawa’s economic dependence is great: 78% of exports go to its neighbor.
“America First”
Targeting Canada, Trump structured his speech around three topics: the desire to impose tariffs on Canada, a potential annexation, and the broader question of the border between the two countries.
The first source of tension is customs duties of 25% on Canadian – and Mexican – products imported into the United States. This is the sign of the “America First” policy, putting American interests first and foremost. A few weeks ago, Donald Trump criticized some among the allies of the United States who take advantage of the latter and thus contribute to a strongly unbalanced relationship as a result of the trade deficit with them.
Looking at the figures closely, the picture is not so gloomy: far from it. Thus, in 2023, these two countries share the largest trade relationship in the world with trade of $923 billion – $441 billion in US exports and $482 billion in imports. Moreover, the interdependence encompasses many sectors and the two countries are therefore more partners than competitors.
Canada: a sieve border
Furthermore, in this context, customs duties would be just as harmful for the American economy as for the Canadian economy. As for the reference to Canada as the possible 51th American state, it made a chronic comeback during the previous month. A historical review shows that this question of annexation is far from being a detail; for more than a century, Washington’s annexationist desires have shaped bilateral relations, with Canada living with “this specter of annexation!”…
In any case, this hypothesis would face major legal obstacles: how could a state which is not unitary but federal with ten provinces and three territories become a single federated American state?
Strengthening border security is the third point of bilateral tension. The issue of irregular migratory flows crossing the Canada/United States border also fuels Trump rhetoric. In 2023, nearly 40,000 migrants will request asylum. Hence the questioning of the common border as a “sieve” which threatens “the security of the United States”. We thus see a shift towards representations of the northern border of the United States as a potential threat. Since 2016, it was the Mexico/United States border that was in Donald Trump’s sights. He sees there a new scapegoat on which to capitalize in his business of securing the national territory but also in his negotiations with the big neighbor to the North.
-In this same vein, it is worth noting President Trump’s desire to regain control of the Panama Canal and annex Greenland. Except to specify that to achieve his ends, the president-elect has not ruled out using force. He explained that these are spaces “very important for the economic security of the United States”. The first is a crucial maritime passageway for international trade; the second is full of natural resources and has considerable geostrategic importance. These are, moreover, two areas in which the United States has been able to exercise certain powers in the past. Thus, it was at the end of 1999 that Washington finally handed over management of the canal in application of two bilateral treaties concluded in 1977. An abandonment which for Donald Trump was a “terrible mistake…”.
As for Greenland, although it is part of the American continent, the United States declared, on August 4, 1916, that they had no objection to Denmark extending its political and economic interests to the whole of this territory. In 1951, a defense agreement with Denmark nevertheless allowed them to keep the Thule base. The status of the Panama Canal today is devoid of the slightest ambiguity. Since January 1, 2000, the canal has been under the sovereignty of Panama. There is only one limit: that of guaranteeing the peaceful transit of ships – including military ships – from all States.
Management of the canal is exercised by an agency of the Panamanian government.
As for the status of Greenland, it has undergone several developments and there could be others in the future. It was a Danish colony for a long time before becoming a province of that country in 1953. In 1979, it obtained the status of an autonomous territory. In 1985, it withdrew from the European Communities; (THIS) ; today it falls under the category of overseas countries and territories (PFOM); its relations with the EU are governed by a specific protocol. In 2009, a new step was taken with the recognition of its population’s status as a “people” and the “right to self-determination”. In 2023, a government commission published a draft constitution with an independent Greenland. A question which will undoubtedly be at the heart of the debates during the next local elections on April 6, 2025.
Improbable cession territoriale
With regard to international law and since the Charter of the United Nations of 1945, any territorial acquisition by armed coercion is contrary to this law. Like Russia in Ukraine, nothing allows or justifies the use of force to seize both the Panama Canal and the Gull. This ban on the use of force does not, however, prevent peaceful transfers of territory: such is the case with the sale of Alaska to the United States in 1867 or with the provisional territorial cession such as the lease used by Washington for Guantanamo. (Cuba). In this case, it is highly unlikely that a territorial cession – provisional or definitive – will occur. It remains to be seen whether the thunderous declarations of Donald Trump, once again President and experienced in negotiation, really intends to take action…
