Greenland, Panama, Canada: Why does Trump want it?

INTRODUCTION

The recent remarks by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump regarding the potential acquisition of Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada have reignited discussions about American expansionism. These proposals raise significant questions about the future of international relations, territorial sovereignty, and the balance of power in global geopolitics

Greenland

About

●       Greenland is an autonomous region of Denmark, strategically located between Europe and North America, with significant geopolitical and military importance due to its proximity to the Arctic.

●       Greenland is part of the Denmark kingdom which also includes the Faroe Islands.

Timeline

●       Pre-1500s: Indigenous Inuit people inhabited Greenland for over 4000 years

●       986-1500s: Norsemen, led by the Viking Erik the Red, settled Greenland. Erik was a Scandinavian criminal who was exiled from Iceland for manslaughter charges.

●       1721-1814: The Viking settlements vanished by 1500 and Denmark as part of the Danish-Norwegian Kingdom began exploring Greenland in the early 18th century. In 1721, the Danish missionary Hans Egede established a colony, marking the start of formal Danish rule. This period also saw the coercive conversion of Inuits to Christianity.

●       1814: Treaty of Kiel ceded Greenland to Denmark after Norway was separated.

●       19th-20th Century: Greenland remained a Danish colony with limited self-governance.

●       1867: The US State Department highlighted Greenland's strategic location and natural resources, suggesting its acquisition, but no formal action was taken.

●       1940-1945: The U.S. took control of Greenland's defense during WWII, as Denmark fell to the Nazi Germany.

●       1946: Following World War II, President Harry S. Truman offered $100 million to Denmark for Greenland and considered exchanging parts of Alaska for Greenland, but the proposal did not progress.

●       1951: USA constructed the Thule Air Base (now expanded to Pituffik Space base) in Greenland under code name ‘Blue Jay’ by expelling the Inuits in thousands. The US also established a Distant Early Warning (DEW), now expanded to Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS). These were mainly to intercept the Soviet jets.

●       Post-War Period and Home Rule (1950s-1979): In 1979, Denmark granted Greenland Home Rule, giving it a degree of autonomy, though foreign affairs, currency and defense remained under Danish control.

●       Full Self-Government (2009-Present): Greenland obtained further autonomy through the Self-Government Act of 2009, gaining more control over its internal affairs. While Denmark still controls foreign policy, defense, and monetary matters, Greenland has its own parliament and government.

●       2019: President Donald Trump proposed buying Greenland, calling it a “large real estate deal,” but cancelled a scheduled visit to Denmark after Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen rejected the idea as absurd.

Significance of Greenland

●       Geostrategic Importance: Greenland's location between Europe and North America allows the US to monitor and intercept potential missile threats from Russia, China, and North Korea, while also providing easier access to launch missiles or ships towards Asia and Europe.

●       Resource Richness: Greenland is abundant in rare earth minerals critical for technology and defense, and with China being a major supplier, the US has an interest in securing access to these resources, particularly as Greenland banned uranium mining in 2021.

●       Arctic Accessibility: As global warming melts ice, new Arctic waterways open, and the US seeks to prevent Russia and China from expanding their influence in the region, ensuring a strong presence in Greenland and its surroundings.

Canada

About

●       Canada is the second-largest country in the world by land area, spanning approximately 9.98 million square kilometres, bordered by the United States to the south.

●       A key economic ally of the U.S., with integrated industries such as automotive, energy, and agriculture, and shared trade agreements like the USMCA.

Significance

●       Economic Integration:

○       Trump believes annexing Canada would eliminate trade deficits and allow the US to directly control Canadian industries, such as lumber, dairy, and automotive production.

○       He envisions reducing reliance on Canadian imports and boosting domestic production in regions like Detroit.

●       National Security: He argues that merging with Canada would strengthen US national security by removing the "artificially drawn" border and consolidating defence efforts.

●     Long-Term Debt Reduction: He ties the idea of acquiring Canada to reducing the US's $36 trillion debt by leveraging resources and energy from the combined territory.

Panama Canal

About

●       The Panama Canal connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, making it a vital global waterway for shipping and trade especially for oil, industrial products, and goods between the US's east and west coasts.

●       The canal is 80 km long and an average 12.5m depth with a minimum width of 300 feet.

Timeline

●       1821: Panama was a Spanish colony till 1821 when the leaders like Simon Bolivar (the Liberator), Franciso de Miranda, Jose de Fabrega among others were instrumental in including Panama into Gran Colombia. Gran Colombia was a republic that included newly independent Panama, Venezuela, Ecuador and Colombia.

●       1831: Saw the dissolution of Gran Colombia and it split into parts, but Panama continued under the sovereignty of the Republic of Columbia. The US tried to negotiate with Columbia for the right to build a canal but Columbia was reluctant.

●       1880s: The French, led by Ferdinand de Lesseps (who had completed the Suez Canal), began building the Panama canal motivated by desire to shorten the shipping route between the Pacific and Atlantic. But they failed due to financial (including corruption) and health issues. The French planned to construct the canal in the same way as Suez by cutting the canal, but the difficult terrain of hard rocks along the isthmus of Panama put paid to their plans.

●       1903: Panama saw independence movements largely due to economic neglect by Columbia. The US took advantage of it by sending forces to help Panama secure independence in exchange for a Canal treaty. Panama declared independence and the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty was signed to give US control of the Panama Canal Zone (which included a 5 mile territory on either side of the canal).

●       1904: The US began constructing the canal, overcoming challenges like disease and technical difficulties. The Canal uses a system of locks (two at Miraflores and one at Gatun) to raise and lower ships as they pass through the artificial Gatun Lake and Culebra Cut. Tugboats guide ships through the locks, which adjust water levels to help vessels move from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or vice versa.

●       1977: US President Jimmy Carter negotiated the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which stipulated that the U.S. would gradually transfer control of the canal back to Panama by the end of 1999. The treaty was the result of increasing tension between Panama and the US regarding sovereignty over the canal. There was also increasing international pressure on US against its imperialism

●       1989: US invaded Panama (operation Just Cause) after the disputed 1989 elections which saw the potential return of a drug warlord General Noriega, a once CIA agent who later fell out of favour. The US installed a transitional government and continued their military presence in Panama.

●       1999: On December 31, 1999, Panama assumed full control of the canal after nearly a century of US operation

Significance

●       Historical Importance:

○       The canal was a strategic asset during the World Wars, facilitating the movement of US military forces and supplies.

○       Control over the canal allowed the US to exert significant influence in the region and globally, particularly during the Cold War.

○       The canal reduced the travel distance for ships, cutting the journey between the US east and west coasts by 8,000 nautical miles.

●       Economic Concerns: 2.5% of global trade passes through the canal. Trump criticizes Panama's control over the canal and its high fees, which he considers unfair to the US, given the historical contribution of the US to its construction.

○       However, Panama says that shipping prices have increased because of droughts last year affecting the canal locks, forcing Panama to drastically cut shipping traffic through the canal and raise rates to use it. 

○       The higher fees will help Panama to accommodate modern shipping needs along the canal.

●       Chinese Influence: Trump is concerned about China’s growing involvement in the region, particularly in managing infrastructure and ports related to the canal, which he perceives as a threat to US interests. Currently, the Panama Ports Company – a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based Hutchison Ports – manages the Balboa and Cristóbal ports that serve as the entry and exit ways to the canal.

●       Illegal Migration: Panama is a key route for illegal migrants from South America, especially the impassable Darien Gap, between Panama and Columbia.

●       Treaty of Neutrality: The 1977 treaty to hand over Panama Canal to Panama contains a neutrality agreement that says that Panama will remain neutral and open to all. The US military can only return to Panama for its defence and that too if requested by Panama. Trump says that the 1977 treaty was ‘foolish’.

Notable US Land Acquisitions

●       Louisiana Purchase (1803): The US acquired more than 2 million sq km of land from France for $15 million during Thomas Jefferson's presidency.

●       Alaska Purchase (1867): The US bought Alaska from the Russian Empire for $7.2 million, adding about 1.5 million sq km of land, with the modern state of Alaska established in 1959.

●       Danish West Indies Purchase (1917): The US bought the Danish West Indies, a group of Caribbean islands, for $25 million and renamed them the US Virgin Islands.

Attitude of World Nations

➔     Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen: Firmly rejected Trump’s proposal to buy Greenland, emphasizing that Greenland is not for sale, and warned against using financial means to force decisions, stressing the importance of peaceful relations between Denmark and the U.S.

➔     Panamanian Foreign Minister Javier Martínez-Acha Vásquez: Strongly denied Trump’s claims about Panama overcharging U.S. ships and allowing Chinese military control over the Panama Canal, asserting that Panama retains full control of the canal and would not entertain such threats.

➔     Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau : Called Trump’s statements about annexing Canada a distraction and pointed to Canada’s increased spending on border security as a sign of cooperation.

➔     German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: Reaffirmed the principle that borders should not be altered by force, expressing unease over Trump’s expansionist rhetoric, and emphasized the need for European unity in response to such destabilizing remarks.

Issues with Trump's Expansionist Rhetoric

➢      Violation of International Norms: Advocating territorial acquisition through force or coercion contradicts principles of sovereignty and international law.

➢      Diplomatic Fallout: Strains relations with key allies like Denmark (Greenland) and Canada, and undermines trust in the US as a global leader.

➢      Geopolitical Instability: Expansionist ambitions could embolden other nations like Russia and China to justify their territorial claims, destabilising global order.

➢      Economic Consequences: Threatening economic coercion could disrupt trade relationships with Canada and other affected nations, harming mutual economic interests.

➢      Legality and Feasibility: Annexing territories like Greenland or the Panama Canal faces significant legal, political, and logistical hurdles, making these goals impractical.

➢      Domestic Criticism: Such policies have drawn backlash from US lawmakers, highlighting divisions and questioning the administration's priorities.

➢      Global Perception: The rhetoric risks portraying the US as an aggressive power, damaging its reputation and soft power influence globally.

➢      Historical Backlash: Revisiting 19th-century expansionism ignores the post-WWII consensus against altering borders by force, potentially reversing decades of progress.

CONCLUSION