Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal and Donald Trump
President-elect Donald Trump’s remarks on purchasing Greenland, as well as reclaiming the Panama Canal Zone and incorporating Canada as the 51st state, caused public consternation globally. The statements – unsurprising due to Mr. Trump’s nature – are widely considered as unbelievable, for some insulting and somewhat mad. Looking more closely, however, it is very probable that part of his maximalist claims are not without grounds.
Let us look at historic developments leading to today’s situation.
The United States has a tradition of expansion through the purchase of territories or their acquisition through other means such as treaties. One might have thought that the time for this is over. Nevertheless, there might be room for new developments.
U.S. growth
American territorial expansion got underway in earnest at the beginning of the 19th century with President Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase from the First French Republic.
It was an immense acquisition − the single-largest land purchase in U.S. history − and was not limited to today’s state of Louisiana, far from it. The purchase ballooned U.S. territory to include nearly the entire western part of the Mississippi River basin from the waterway west to the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, from the Gulf of Mexico in the south to the Canadian border in the north. The area is the center of today’s contiguous U.S.
The acquisition of Greenland is not a utopia nor a new idea.
This was followed in 1819 by the purchase of Florida from Spain and in 1867 Alaska from Russia. In 1917 Washington agreed with Copenhagen to purchase the Danish West Indies, which were then renamed the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Other increases came through areas joining the U.S., such as the newly independent Republic of Texas in 1845, or by treaties like what Washington concluded with the United Kingdom for the Oregon territory in 1846. The Panama Canal Zone was secured by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 through a somewhat forced treaty, and subsequently given to Panama in 1977.
Today’s geopolitics
Back to today’s situation: It appears utopian to envision that Canada would become part of the U.S. This statement by the president-elect is probably just a verbal bargaining chip in a broader narrative with other geostrategic objectives. Mentions of Canada in this context will remain momentary.
The objective with Panama might not be the return of the Canal Zone to Washington, but instead some commitments may be sought to assure U.S. interests. The Panama Canal is crucially important to the U.S. A strong Chinese influence there would be a major problem and already fuels concerns. We must take into consideration that entry ports to the canal on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts are now operated by Hong Kong-based companies.
Arctic gateway
Greenland, the gatekeeper to the northern reaches of the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic, is of crucial strategic importance to the security of the U.S. One of the most important bases of the U.S. Airforce is in Thule on Greenland’s northwestern coast. The world’s largest island is populated by roughly 60,000 people and is an autonomous territory of Denmark, with aspirations for independence. This might open the way to undesired influences.
Nowadays, the simple sale of a territory from one state to another seems inconceivable. Yet we have to remember that the island in question is neither a property of Denmark nor of the U.S., but is a territory under the right of self-determination of its own population. Can Washington offer to the people of Greenland a package, attractive enough, that they might join the U.S. by a majority referendum, giving the U.S. a 51st state?
The acquisition of Greenland is not a utopia nor a new idea. This was already an issue and goal during Mr. Trump’s first presidency. It is not only possible − but in fact likely − that the new White House administration will further pursue this objective. A Washington success should not be ruled out. An American friend once told me: “Donald Trump should not be taken literally, but certainly seriously.”
This comment was originally published here: https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/greenland-donald-trump/