Donald Trump’s vision of annexing Canada or acquiring Greenland and the Panama Canal is unlikely to come to fruition, but it is fueling a climate of tension.
Trump 2.0
During his campaign, President Donald Trump presented himself as a leader who had not started new wars during his first presidency and pledged that in his second term there would be no new wars. He even declared himself as the president who could “prevent World War III.”
Yet since winning his second term, Donald Trump has primarily focused on his “America First” foreign policy, adopting ambitions that smack of imperialism.
Trump has notably expressed his intention to reclaim the Panama Canal and acquire Greenland, possibly by military means, and plans to use economic repression to cause Canada to become the 51e State of the United States.
This article explores the motivations behind Trump’s “imperialist” agenda, questioning the nature of his strategy: is it a considered calculation, a show of force, or just a bit of two?
The case of Greenland
Late last year, Trump declared on his Truth Social platform that “ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” to ensure the “economic security” of the United States. After World War II, the United States briefly occupied the Arctic island before abandoning its bases shortly thereafter. Greenland, under Danish control since the 14th centurye century, became an autonomous territory fully integrated into Denmark in 1953. Trump had already raised the idea of acquiring the island in 2018, during his first term, but this time he seems determined to prove his seriousness. To do this, he sent his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., on his private jet to the Greenlandic capital, Nuuk, as part of a sightseeing visit. But why would Trump want to take over Greenland? Two strategic reasons seem to motivate this ambition.
First of all, Greenland is of strategic importance due to its sea routes. Located in the northeast of Canada and largely covered by the immense Greenland ice sheet, it is the largest island in the world, although it only has around 60,000 inhabitants. A semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, Greenland has its own elected government. Its location, at the crossroads of the United States, Russia and Europe, gives it inestimable value both economically and militaryly. The melting of the Arctic sea ice has opened new maritime routes, strengthening its role in international trade and defense strategies. Greenland is also home to the northernmost US military base. “We need Greenland for national security reasons,” Trump said. “I’m talking about protecting the free world. There are Chinese ships everywhere, Russian ships everywhere. We will not let this happen. We will not allow it.”
Source: MSN
The second reason lies in Greenland’s untapped natural resources. Its ice caps are melting at an alarming rate, losing 270 billion tons of water per year, and the region could be ice-free as early as summer 2030. While this underscores the urgency of the climate crisis, it also opens access to previously inaccessible resources. Greenland is rich in oil, natural gas and minerals, including lithium and graphite, essential for the production of batteries for electric vehicles. Currently, China controls 65% of global graphite production, making Greenland a strategic alternative supplier. Greenland is also home to significant reserves of rare earth minerals, essential for advanced technologies such as semiconductors, artificial intelligence and military equipment like the F-35.
With China and Russia controlling 90% of rare earth production, Greenland represents an opportunity for strategic independence in securing these materials. Demand for rare earths currently exceeds supply, keeping prices high.
Source: Politico.
Four scenarios are possible
- Trump gets tired and nothing happens. It could just be lip service. Some believe Trump’s statements are just a tactic to pressure Denmark to strengthen Greenland’s defenses against the growing influence of Russia and China in the Arctic.
- Greenland declares its independence and moves closer to the United States. Greenlanders have long viewed independence as inevitable, and if they vote in favor of separation, Denmark will likely respect their decision. Greenland could then turn to the United States for support, perhaps through a free association agreement, like the Marshall Islands or Micronesia.
- Trump is playing the economic card. Trump’s economic tactics, such as high tariffs on Danish goods, could force Denmark to give in on the Greenland issue.
- Trump sends in the troops. Although unlikely, military intervention remains possible. With military bases already present in the territory, Trump’s refusal to rule out the use of force keeps this “nuclear option” on the table.
The Panama Canal
It is a strategic shipping lane, accounting for about 40% of U.S. container traffic, according to CargoNOW. It connects the Pacific Ocean to the Caribbean Sea and then to the Atlantic Ocean, significantly reducing delivery times and fuel costs for international trade.
Formerly under American management, the canal was transferred to Panama on December 31, 1999, following a treaty signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. Donald Trump has since criticized the treaty, calling it a “mistake” and threatening to cancel it, while (probably) falsely claiming that the canal was now under Chinese control. Trump justifies this takeover as a necessity for the “economic security” of the United States, claiming that the canal is poorly managed. “The Panama Canal is essential to our country. It is controlled by China. China! And we gave the canal to Panama, not China, and they abused it. This gift should never have been given,” he said.
However, Panamanian President José Raul Mulino formally rejected these accusations, saying: “There is absolutely no interference or involvement of China in the management of the Panama Canal.”
Source: MSN.
-The case of Canada
Donald Trump’s expansionist ambitions have extended to Canada, a long-time ally of the United States. Although he stopped short of threatening military action, Trump spoke of using “economic force” to pressure Canada into becoming the 51e American state.
Indeed, his frustration with American spending on Canadian products and military support is clear, asserting that they bring no real benefit to the United States.
By calling former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a “governor,” Trump reiterated his desire to annex Canada. “If Canada became our 51e State, its taxes would be reduced by more than 60%, its businesses would immediately double in size and it would benefit from incomparable military protection,” he wrote on social networks, brandishing the carrot before the stick.
However, Trudeau won’t be around to respond to Trump much longer. He resigned at the beginning of the month, after a drop in popularity and internal pressure within his party. Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party, appears to be the likely successor. Known for his stances in favor of privacy and the use of cryptocurrencies, Poilievre could be a more favorable interlocutor for Trump. That said, Poilievre has not shown interest in Trump’s rhetoric regarding annexation.
Real threat or simple negotiation tactic?
Donald Trump’s undiplomatic statements on the recovery of the Panama Canal, the annexation of Greenland and the incorporation of Canada as 51e State has stirred up the international community. The Panamanian Foreign Minister affirmed that the sovereignty of the canal was “non-negotiable”, while the Danish Prime Minister reaffirmed that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders”. As for Canada, Justin Trudeau rejected the idea, specifying that there was “not a snowball chance in hell” of a merger with the United States.
The real issue with Trump is not his words, but their seriousness. Senator Elizabeth Warren suggested it might just be a distraction, aimed at drawing attention away from her cabinet choices. Dan Hamilton, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, thinks the comments are more of a tactic than a real threat.
Trump appears to be seeking to counter China and other rivals by returning to the 200-year-old Monroe Doctrine, which asserted U.S. sovereignty over the Western Hemisphere. This approach echoes Nixon’s “madman theory,” which used unpredictability to destabilize his adversaries and get them to negotiate. Hamilton suggests that Trump adopt a modern version of this strategy, aiming to disorient his NATO allies and force them to “up the ante” to preserve their relations with Washington.
It is also possible that Trump 2.0 is more committed to extreme ideology than Trump 1.0 was. Having survived two indictments, four indictments, two assassination attempts, and enjoying virtual impunity thanks to the Supreme Court, Trump seems fueled by a sense of invincibility. He even claimed to have been spared by God to “save a broken country.”
Source: Syz-Research-Lab, the White House.
Meanwhile, it appears markets are taking Trump seriously. Panama CDS are up, the Global on Trump’s expansionist ambitions.
Source: ZeroHedge, Bloomberg.
Source: BofA.
Conclusion
Trump’s vision of annexing Canada or acquiring Greenland and the Panama Canal is unlikely to come to fruition, but it is fueling a climate of tension. Its real goal may be to strengthen the MAGA movement and ignite an aggressive wave of American patriotism.
In the long term, however, this strategy risks creating more enemies and further destabilizing an already fragmented world.
Related News :