Are Greenland, Panama & Canada the New Targets of America
Trump’s International Strategy: Alliance or Confrontation
Trump’s Greenland Aspirations Stir Controversy
Just weeks before returning to the White House, Trump has sparked unease by discussing the possibility of military intervention to acquire Greenland, a territory controlled by Denmark, and the Panama Canal. Trump has described both regions as critical to America’s economic security. Additionally, he stated he would not hesitate to apply economic pressure to incorporate Canada into the United States.
During his first presidency in 2019, Trump expressed interest in purchasing Greenland, the world’s largest island and a self-governing Danish territory. Now, ahead of potentially reclaiming the presidency, Trump has gone a step further, refusing to rule out the use of America’s economic strength or military force to gain control over Greenland. In response, Greenland’s Prime Minister, Múte B. Egede, warned Trump that “Greenland belongs to its people and is not for sale,” while the European Union reiterated its support for Denmark’s regional sovereignty.
On 7 January, during a press conference, Trump emphasized Greenland’s importance for economic reasons and stated he might even consider military action to secure control. His repeated attention to the issue highlights its growing significance for him. But why is Greenland so important? Experts believe the primary motivation lies in the island’s untapped mineral wealth.
Historically, American officials have recognised Greenland’s strategic importance. During the Cold War, its proximity to Russia made it vital for securing Europe and North America’s maritime trade routes. For decades, the U.S. military maintained a base there to monitor ballistic missiles. However, a 2023 report by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland estimated that the island contains 38 minerals in significant quantities, including copper, graphite, niobium, titanium, and rhodium. Rare earth elements such as neodymium and praseodymium, essential for manufacturing electric vehicle motors and wind turbines, were also identified.
According to Professor Adam Simon of the University of Michigan, “Greenland may hold 25% of the world’s rarest minerals.” If accurate, this equates to 1.5 million tonnes. Amid shifting global energy demands, securing rare minerals has become critical, as they are essential for combating climate change. Major powers are competing to control significant mineral reserves worldwide, leading to growing tensions.
Currently, China dominates the rare minerals market, controlling one-third of global supply, which has bolstered its political and economic influence. Two companies are actively exploring rare minerals in Greenland, one of which has significant investment from a Chinese state-owned company. This raises questions about how this extraordinary situation might develop, especially as NATO allies appear divided over the issue. Greenland, where 80% of the land is covered in ice, is attracting global interest for its abundant mineral resources. The situation also raises concerns about how it might impact the aspirations of Greenland’s 56,000 residents for independence after 300 years under Danish rule.
Speculations and Future Scenarios
Trump’s recent remarks about Greenland have led to speculation that his statements might merely be a strategy to pressure Denmark into strengthening Greenland’s security against the increasing influence of Russia and China in the region. Last month, Denmark announced a $1.5 billion military package for the Arctic. While this decision was made prior to Trump’s comments, its announcement shortly afterward was described by Denmark’s Defence Minister as “a matter of timing.”
Elisabeth Svane, Chief Political Correspondent for the Danish newspaper Politiken, noted, “Trump’s key point was that Denmark must fulfil its Arctic responsibilities, or allow the U.S. to step in.” Associate Professor Mark Jacobsen from the Royal Danish Defence College suggested that Trump’s stance might be a pre-emptive move ahead of his potential presidency, while Greenland could use this moment to advance its independence aspirations and garner international attention.
Even if Trump loses interest in Greenland, which Jacobsen sees as the most likely outcome, he has undeniably drawn attention to the issue. Greenland’s independence has been on the agenda for years, and some argue this debate could take a different direction.
Recent statements by Greenland’s Prime Minister suggest a more measured approach, hinting at a willingness to consider independence, albeit not immediately. Greenlanders widely agree that they will eventually achieve independence, and Denmark is expected to support and ratify this decision. However, it is unlikely Greenland would vote for independence without guarantees of continued subsidies from Denmark for healthcare and welfare services.
Greenland’s Independence Dilemma and U.S. Aspirations
According to the Danish Institute for International Studies, “Although the Prime Minister of Greenland may be upset, if he indeed announces a referendum, he will face significant challenges in sustaining Greenland’s economy and will need a solid narrative regarding welfare schemes.” A potential resolution to this issue could involve moving toward annexation, similar to how the United States previously handled Pacific nations like the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau.
In the past, Denmark opposed such annexation or any change in the status of both Greenland and the Faroe Islands. However, Denmark’s current Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, is not entirely against such a possibility. Denmark’s perspective on Greenland has evolved significantly over the past 20 years. Denmark now acknowledges its responsibilities toward the region and is trying to address them. This shift may persuade Frederiksen to maintain some connection with Greenland, even if it’s a weaker one, as retaining Greenland within the Arctic framework is seen as beneficial.
Yet, even if Greenland succeeds in breaking away from Denmark, it has become evident in recent years that it cannot escape U.S. influence. After occupying the island during World War II, the Americans have never truly left. The United States views the island as vital to its security and future.
The 1951 agreement nominally reaffirmed Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland. However, in practice, it allowed the United States to achieve all it desired. Greenland’s authorities have been in contact with successive U.S. administrations regarding America’s role in the region and understand that the U.S. is unlikely to withdraw from the island.
Speculations are rife that Trump’s economic rhetoric poses the greatest threat to Denmark, as
the U.S. is significantly increasing tariffs on goods from Denmark and even the European Union. This could pressure Denmark to make concessions regarding Greenland. According to Professor Jacobsen, “Denmark’s government is being compelled by external factors to pay more attention to the island, so it’s fair to say that there are various elements driving Denmark’s interest in Greenland.”
Trump has threatened to impose a direct 10% tariff on all American imports. Among other impacts, this could create significant challenges for European countries’ economic growth. As a result, some Danish and European companies are now considering establishing production facilities in the United States. Benjamin Cote, of the international law firm Pillsbury, told the website Market Watch that potential tariff hikes might involve invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This could potentially affect Denmark’s pharmaceutical industry, one of its major economic sectors. The U.S. imports several products from Denmark, including hearing aids and insulin. Additionally, the diabetes drug “Ozempic” is manufactured by Denmark’s Novo Nordisk. Any resulting increase in drug prices is unlikely to be well-received by the American public.
While it seems unlikely that the U.S. would take such measures, Trump’s refusal to rule out military action keeps this option on the table.
U.S. Control over Greenland
In essence, it would not be difficult for the United States to gain control over Greenland, as it already maintains military bases and a significant military presence there. The U.S. effectively holds de facto control over the island. Trump’s statements appear to stem from information he does not fully comprehend, and any military action in Greenland would undoubtedly create an international crisis. If Trump decides to attack Greenland, he would, under NATO’s Article 5, be attacking NATO itself. But if a NATO country attacks another member state, NATO’s very existence would be called into question.
Trump’s rhetoric on this issue mirrors that of Chinese President Xi Jinping on Taiwan or Russian President Vladimir Putin on Ukraine. Trump asserts, “It is right for us to acquire this land.” If his statements are taken seriously, they signal a concerning development for the entire Western alliance.
Repercussions Across NATO and Canada
Trump’s remarks have sparked unease not only among NATO member states but also in neighbouring Canada. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau not only resigned but also announced his withdrawal from politics altogether. Trump has repeatedly referred to Canada’s border as “artificial,” suggesting that Canada could become the 51st state of the United States. Criticising the billions of dollars spent by the U.S. on Canada’s defence, Trump has also raised issues related to imports of Canadian cars, timber, and dairy products. Like Mexico, Canada faces the threat of a 25% tariff on goods exported to the U.S. under Trump’s prospective presidency.
During an extended press conference, Trump expressed concerns about drugs entering the United States through the borders with Mexico and Canada. However, according to American statistics, the amount of fentanyl seized at the U.S.-Canada border is significantly lower than that at the southern border. Canada has pledged to implement new security measures along its border with the U.S. to reduce organised crime. However, Justin Trudeau dismissed Trump’s economic threats aimed at integrating Canada into the U.S. as “impossible.”
Analysts suggest that Trump is sending signals to his international allies and domestic supporters. However, there is unease in the U.S. regarding the perception that wealthy European allies are not taking sufficient steps to safeguard international security. Former U.S. National Security Adviser James Jeffrey dismissed the likelihood of any military intervention or action by the U.S., stating, “We will not march into Greenland, Canada, or seize the Panama Canal, but the extent of the commotion it might cause is another question. The real threat to the international order is not Donald Trump but Russia and China.”
However, David Maddox, the Political Editor of British newspaper The Independent, believes Trump’s statements should be taken seriously. He argues that Trump’s rhetoric reflects an imperialistic attitude, aiming to extend America’s global foothold. Maddox views this as a serious danger and predicts that Trump’s new administration will be vastly different from his first term, posing significant instability for the rest of the world.
Panama also expressed strong resentment over Trump’s remarks. After decades of negotiations and the transfer of control over the Panama Canal to Panama in 1999, Trump’s recent comments have caused uproar. Due to security concerns, Trump now seeks to regain control of this vital maritime passage. He stated, “The Panama Canal is critical for our country. While we handed its control to Panama, we did not hand it over to China. The Panamanian authorities have misused this gift.”
However, official data contradicts Trump’s claims. According to the Panama Canal Authority, U.S. cargo accounts for 72% of the traffic passing through the canal, while China comes second with 22%. It is noteworthy that China has made significant economic investments in Panama. The canal is not only essential for U.S. trade in the Pacific but also holds strategic importance in the event of any future military conflict with China.
Previously, Trump accused the Panama Authority of charging U.S. cargo companies higher fees for using the canal. In a press conference in Panama City, the Panamanian Minister of the Interior stated, “The sovereignty of the Panama Canal is non-negotiable. Its control rests solely with the people of Panama and will remain so in the future.”
To understand the strategic importance of the Panama Canal, one must consider why Trump made such a claim over its ownership. Before the canal’s construction, ships travelling between the east and west coasts of the Americas had to navigate around Cape Horn at the southern tip of South America. The Panama Canal has since reduced this journey by 8,000 nautical miles or 15,000 kilometres. Similarly, routes between a North American coast and a South American port now save up to 6,500 kilometres, while ships travelling between Europe and East Asia or Australia benefit from a 3,700-kilometre reduction.
This transformative development also reduced travel time, which once required two to three weeks, to just 10 hours to cross the canal. This revolutionary change has greatly benefited China, as its policies aim to establish it as a global superpower through trade and market expansion, fostering economic growth worldwide. On the other hand, Trump, a capitalist businessman who also became the president of a powerful nation like the U.S., uses threats and dominance to realise his vision of global supremacy—a dream that has already faced defeats in numerous countries.
