It’s not impossible. Importantly, neither Denmark nor the EU is in control of the situation.
Trump says he isn’t bluffing in threats to take over allies. He wants Denmark to sell Greenland and Canada to become the 51’st state.
The Wall Street Journal reports Trump Imagines New Sphere of U.S. Influence Stretching from Panama to Greenland
In a press conference Tuesday, Trump outlined a second-term foreign policy agenda that rests not on global alliances and free trade but on economic coercion and unilateral military might, even against allies.
With the Panama Canal and Greenland, he suggested he could use force to take them over. With Canada, he suggested he would hit the U.S.’s northern neighbor with extreme tariffs, leaving it no choice but to submit to annexation.
“Canada and the United States, that would really be something,” Trump said. “You get rid of that artificially drawn line and you take a look at what that looks like and it would also be much better for national security.”
Asked by a reporter if he would commit to not using military force or economic pressure in his quest to acquire the territories, Trump replied “No, I can’t assure you on either of those two. But I can say this, we need them for economic security.”
Trump’s willingness to broach such ideas and his disregard for bipartisan doctrines left some aghast.
“We just haven’t seen anything like this, at least in my lifetime, from a president of the United States,” said Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator and defense secretary during the Obama administration. “This is very, very autocratic, and that is why it is so concerning what Trump is saying and how he’s acting.”
“When our strongest allies and partners lose confidence in us, no good is going to come from all of that,” Hagel said. “China and Russia are looking at all this like, ‘Go ahead, Mr. Trump, keep talking.’”
Trump’s vow to annex Canada is bluster aimed at gaining leverage before trade negotiations with Ottawa, some advisers say. His threat to take back the canal is a ploy to secure lower prices for U.S. ships sailing through Panama, and his fixation on acquiring Greenland is about gaining access to rare-earth minerals and denying them to China, they add.
“There is this idea that our number one priority is the defense of the hemisphere, and that China and Russia are coming into our backyard,” Gray added. “You have to see Greenland and Panama in that context.”
Advisers close to Trump acknowledge that annexation of Canada is unlikely, and instead suggest the comments are rooted in Trump’s aggressive negotiating style, particularly at this time of transition in Canada, where he seeks to put the incoming prime minister on notice.
“We’ve been good neighbors, but we can’t do it forever, and it is a tremendous amount of money,” Trump said during the news conference. “That is OK to have if you’re a state, but if you’re another country, we don’t want to have it.”
We Need Greenland and Panama for National Security
There’s no such thing as allies anymore. You’re either a part of the U.S or you’re not.
In the above video Trump said he would rename the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America, that Canada would be the 51st state, and he would not rule out taking Greenland or Panama by force.
It was my idea (mocking) to rename Australia as East America.
Take Trump Seriously or Literally?
A good friend of mine often says “Take Trump seriously, not literally.”
Regarding Canada, I take Trump neither seriously or literally. Canada as a 51’st state is not going to happen.
But hypothetically, I wonder if on average we would have more liberal or conservative Senators as a result.
When you talk this way and threaten to break treaties like USMCA, how can anyone trust you?
Trump is literally screaming to all of our allies that he cannot be trusted to honor any deal, even those he makes.
Why make a deal with Trump if you take him seriously about breaking them?
That’s the problem I have with all this bluster.
But What About Greenland?
Consider this view: “The EU will not allow Trump to take control of Greenland.”
Despite what anyone may think, it’s not impossible.
Importantly, neither Denmark nor the EU is in control of the situation.
Falling on Ice in Greenland
Eurointelligence discusses Falling on Ice in Greenland.
With Greenland, Europe is running into a geopolitical disaster largely of its own making. It would have cost almost nothing for the EU to have made Greenland – and Iceland – an offer for membership, in return of which the EU would have obtained a foothold in one of the strategically most important regions.
It’s long forgotten, but Greenland was a member of the EU once when it was part of Denmark. With the departure of Greenland and the UK, the EU lost its two most northern Atlantic members. People tend to forget that neither Finland nor Sweden have access to the Arctic coastline.
Greenland formally withdrew from the EU in 1985. Today, Greenland is still part part of the Danish crown, but the 2009 autonomy acts give Greenland the right to secession through a referendum.
So the statement by Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, that Greenland is not for sale is bunk. This is up to the seller. The seller is not Denmark, but the 59,000 inhabitants of Greenland. Neither Denmark nor the EU can stop this.
The Arctic has become geostrategically increasingly important. Russia is the Arctic superpower. The region also hold economically because of raw materials and because melting sea ice could open up new trade routes. It is also unsurprising that Trumps prioritises the acquisition of Greenland, Canada, and the Panama canal, using the language of mergers and acquisitions.
It should also come as a reminder that the US does not share Europe’s priority of Ukraine as its number one geopolitical issue of our time. For Trump, the security policy priority is to push back China away from the US’s own geographic neighbourhood, and to secure a strong presence in supplies of critical raw materials.
We are where we are because the EU ended it path towards political integration with the introduction of the euro, deluding itself into believing that soft power, diplomatic grand-standing, and control over regulation would prevail in the end.
Buying Greenland Would Be Wise
Buying Canada is not possible. Greenland is another matter. All it takes is a referendum of 59,000 people.
If we offered all 59,000 people $2 million each, we could buy Greenland for $118 billion. Greenland would be cheap at double the price.
Would over half of Greenland citizens vote to take the offer? If not, what about $4 million each?
It is certainly not preposterous to think so. And if so, we would buy Greenland for $118 to $236 billion.
This would probably cause a baby boom in Greenland as well a people clamoring to become Greenland citizens. So we might need to fine tune the offer a bit and require takers to stay at least 10 years or so.
What may seem ridiculous at first glance, may actually be a brilliant idea.
Related Posts
January 3: Make Greenland Great Again: PM Seeks Independence From Denmark
Fresh on the heels of another Trump offer to buy Greenland, comes another call for independence.
January 2: Five Funding and Legal Obstacles to Trump’s Immigration Plans
Trump has a mandate in two areas, inflation and the border. This post deals with the latter.
January 6: How Much Revenue Can Trump Realistically Bring in From Tariffs?
There are many moving parts to this question including Congress, retaliations, and consumer impacts.
The January 6 link above discusses USMCA and why Trump won’t impose the tariffs on Mexico and Canada that he threatens.
However, it’s smooth sailing for Greenland offers as I see matters.