Since his victory in the United States presidential election in November 2024, Donald Trump has multiplied provocative territorial claims, drawing international attention with annexationist proposals, including the integration of Canada into the United States, the acquisition of Greenland, and the reclaiming of control over the Panama Canal. These statements echo certain ambitions expressed during his first term from 2017 to 2021, when he frequently framed US geopolitical strategy in terms of economic dominance, military strength, and a revival of American expansionism. While such rhetoric may have been dismissed as political posturing, it raises fundamental questions about the resurgence of imperialist discourse in contemporary US foreign policy.
Territorial claim on Canada
In his rhetoric regarding Canada, Trump framed the bilateral trade relationship as a cornerstone of Canada's economic viability, emphasizing the significance of US consumption of Canadian exports. By underscoring that 75% of Canada’s total exports are directed to the US, Trump implied that Canada’s economic stability is heavily reliant on this exchange. This framing evokes a neo-imperialist narrative, where economic dependency on a larger power can be viewed as a vulnerability. In this context, Trump's assertions could be interpreted not only as a negotiation tactic, but also as an attempt to assert US dominance in North America, leveraging economic interdependence as a form of geopolitical influence. His assertion that Canada might struggle without this relationship highlights the unequal power dynamics inherent in global trade and underscores the fragility of smaller economies when faced with more dominant powers.
The proposal to make Canada the 51st state of the United States, seen by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a serious issue related to US interests in the country’s vast natural resources, reveals a deeper theme in Trump’s vision of American expansionism. Although swiftly rejected by Canada, the suggestion emphasized Trump's broader ambitions to reshape North America in a way that aligns with his vision of American dominance. While the idea of annexing Canada has been historically present in American political discourse, particularly during the 19th century’s expansionist period, Trump’s proposal was distinct in that it was not based on territorial conquest but rather on asserting economic and political power. Trudeau's rejection of the proposal underscores Canada's enduring commitment to its sovereignty and independence. However, the very fact that such a suggestion was made signals the underlying tension between US economic might and Canadian autonomy.
This tension raises important questions about the future of US-Canada relations and the potential for deeper integration under the shadow of American power. Given their close economic ties, this interdependence will continue to shape the dynamics between the two nations. Whether this will lead to more cooperation or reinforce Canada’s resolve to preserve its sovereignty remains to be seen. The challenge for Canada will be navigating its relationship with the US. while maintaining its independence, especially as the US continues to project its influence in the region.
Territorial claim on Greenland
Regarding Greenland, Trump has declared: “For purpose of national security and freedom throughout the world, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, exercising self-rule while Denmark retains control over its defense and foreign policy. Additionally, the 1951 Defense Agreement between Denmark and the United States allows Washington to maintain a military base at Thule, giving it a strategic presence in the region.
Denmark has long exercised sovereignty over Greenland, particularly after the Treaty of Kiel in 1814, which transferred Norway’s territories, including Greenland, to Denmark. This sovereignty was further affirmed by the International Court of Justice’s 1933 ruling in the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland case, which ruled in Denmark’s favor against Norway’s claims. Additionally, under the 1917 Treaty of the Danish West Indies, Denmark sold the Virgin Islands to the United States, and as part of the agreement, the US renounced any claims over Greenland in favor of Denmark.
The purchase of Greenland had already been proposed by the in 2019 by Donald Trump during his first term. Although no official evaluation or offer price has been provided, such a purchase would have to go through a treaty between the USA, Denmark and Greenland, whose consent is mandatory, while it has long called for greater autonomy, if not independence. Furthermore, any such acquisition would require the approval of the US Senate, where a two-thirds majority would be needed to ratify a treaty. In this regard, during his previous term, Donald Trump attempted to circumvent Congressional opposition on certain issues, for example by using Pentagon funds to finance the construction of the border wall with Mexico, when Congress refused to approve his requested budget for the project.
It should be noted that, historically, the United States has acquired significant territories through purchase, such as Louisiana from France under Thomas Jefferson and Alaska from Russia in 1867 under President Andrew Johnson. However, Greenland's situation differs significantly, as it is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. While there have been discussions about Greenland’s importance in terms of geostrategic localization and valuable natural resources, especially during the Cold War, no formal offer to purchase Greenland has been made by the US. and Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Egede has clearly rejected any notion of selling Greenland, stating that "Greenland is not for sale.”
Territorial claim on Panama Canal
Another geographical area that is the object of territorial covetousness is the Panama Canal, where the United States intend to impose their hegemony, due to the free use of the port by the Chinese and the high tariffs imposed on American ships that transit there.
Panama gained its independence from Spain in 1821 and from Colombia in 1903. When the United States failed to secure Colombia’s agreement for the construction of a canal connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, they supported Panama’s independence movement against Colombia. In return, Panama signed a treaty granting the United States control and the freedom to build the canal, which proved highly beneficial to the Americans during World War II. Over time, rejecting US imperialism in the region, Panama pressured then US President Jimmy Carter to sign a 1977 agreement for the gradual transfer of power, culminating in full Panamanian control by 1999. Therefore, since January 1, 2000, the canal has been under the sovereignty of Panama.
Donald Trump, however, has called the decision to relinquish control of the Panama Canal a “terrible mistake,” as it is a crucial shipping route for international trade. His views on the issue are part of his broader narrative about US strength, particularly in regions deemed strategically important to US interests. For Trump, losing control of the canal represents a missed opportunity to strengthen US geopolitical dominance in the Western Hemisphere. This view is part of Trump’s broader push to reassert US. influence over global trade routes and critical infrastructure, a sentiment that is reflected in his policies toward other regions, such as the Arctic and the South China Sea, where he has advocated for greater US presence and control.
This view also underscores the ongoing tension between national sovereignty and geopolitical strategy, particularly when it comes to strategic assets like the Panama Canal. Trump’s call to reconsider the 1999 handover echoes a broader debate about the US role in managing global resources and infrastructure, and the balance between exercising power and respecting the sovereignty of other States, particularly Latin American States that are seen as the US backyard.
Regarding this Trump’s claims, the Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino has said that “every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent zone belongs to Panama and will remain so. The sovereignty and independence of our country are not negotiable.” Refuting Trump's allegation that China is involved in the canal's management, Mulino added that the canal "is not under direct or indirect control, neither by China nor by the European community, by the US or by any other power.”
While in the cases of Greenland and the Panama Canal the US President has not ruled out the use of force, it is clear that any territorial acquisition by armed coercion would be contrary to international law under the United Nations Charter and, more specifically, Article 2(4), which states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” It remains to be seen whether Trump actually intends to follow through on his proposals, or whether his claims are part of a deliberate strategy to obtain concessions.
Aucun commentaire :
Enregistrer un commentaire