Trump's bizarre foreign policy musings

There is a growing feeling that America’s infatuation with wokeness has peaked; that the insanity of redefining reality is fading.

One place, however, where it seems to be taking up residence is in the White House, under Donald Trump. As the steward of US foreign policy, Trump is planning to redefine international relations. His daydreams about buying Greenland, taking back the Panama Canal, and absorbing Canada may just be King of the Jungle chest-beating, but even mentioning them could have serious consequences.

To be fair to Trump, American foreign policy has always featured a strain of fantasy. During the Iraq War, a Bush Administration official sneered at the “reality-based community” (ie, sane people): “That's not the way the world really works anymore,” he said. “We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out.

And how did that work out for Mr Bush and his neocon coterie? Not well. How did it work out for the people of Iraq? Catastrophically. It led to 100,000 deaths in Iraq (one estimate is 600,000), plus the bloody rise of ISIS and a civil war in Syria.

As a champion of liberal democracy the United States has traditionally supported national self-determination and opposed colonialism. Threatening to annex Greenland encourages bullies around the world to covet their neighbours’ land. It will help justify Russia’s campaign in Ukraine. It will embolden China to take back Taiwan. If Trump were to take Greenland, it would be impossible to condemn Putin or Xi in their adventures. If Greenland can become the 51st state, why can't Ukraine become Russian?

 

icon

Join Mercator today for free and get our latest news and analysis

Buck internet censorship and get the news you may not get anywhere else, delivered right to your inbox. It's free and your info is safe with us, we will never share or sell your personal data.

International respect for borders is a fairly recent development in international affairs. By and large, nations lived by the ancient Greek dictum, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". The right of conquest was disputed only by losers.

After the calamity of World War II, the United Nations charter declared that “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”. Territorial integrity has been a cornerstone of the international order ever since.

Now Trump is implying that legitimate security concerns are sufficient reason to demand territory and even to seize it by force.

If this principle is adopted, it’s not just the great powers – the US, China, Russia and India – who will grab what they can.

How about Venezuela’s claim to part of Colombia? Or Serbia’s claim to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo? Or Guatemala’s claim to Belize? The list of existing border disputes around the globe is endless. Trump’s threat to repudiate a rules-based system of settling disputes could turn diplomatic spats into wars.

One characteristic feature of wokeness is historical amnesia, a condition which seems to affect Donald Trump. The world in 2025 is far from peaceful. There are wars in Ukraine and Israel. There are civil wars or anarchy in Sudan, Myanmar, Haiti, and Central Africa. Late last year Azerbaijan settled its decades-old border dispute with Armenia by the ancient right of conquest.

But these are schoolboy fights compared to World War II when Germany, Italy and Japan attempted to conquer and annex whole countries. Some 80 million people died.

Annexing Greenland will not unleash this kind of violence. Barely 60,000 people live there, in any case. But an American president who muses about redefining international relations by repudiating the inviolability of territorial integrity could turn nasty regimes elsewhere into murderous bullies.

It’s an ominous start to Trump 2.0. 


What do you think about the Greenland proposal? 


Michael Cook is editor of Mercator.

Image credit: Bigstock


 

Showing 11 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Steven Meyer
    commented 2025-01-16 12:06:51 +1100
    US already has a military base in Greenland and negotiations were under way for a second one. So far as the Danes are concerned, USA can station as many troops and equipment there as it likes.

    Raising the issue of who owns it looks pointless but I guess it distracts his base from the reality that grocery prices will not go down and H1-B visas will continue.

    The same applies to the Panama Canal. US naval vessels go to the front of the queue. The real problem the canal operators face is a shortage of water to operate the locks. Passages have been restricted and traffic is down.

    As for Canada, I do not think the Federation will hold together. I think some of the provinces, given the option, would join the US.

    But all this drama distracts from Trump’s inability to deliver on groceries, housing. healthcare and immigration.

    As for the Dems, they’ve continued their now terminal ineptitude. Some questions I would have asked Pete Hegseth:

    —Are aircraft carriers still viable in an era of long range antiship missiles, silent diesel submarines and submarine drones and hypersonic glide vehicles.

    —Right now China can outproduce the US in war materiel. What can be done to rebuild America’s military industrial base.

    Here are some harsh realities:

    —China is the United States’ main strategic rival.

    —China has a highly skilled STEM labour force on a scale the world has never seen.

    —The US on it’s own cannot compete with China in tech

    —The US had willing allies. The past tense is not a typo. The US plus its allies would be unbeatable. But that requires leadership. Being the head of an alliance means the US resigns itself to not having everything its own way. That’s how the US won the cold war.

    Does anyone here think Trump is up to it? Does anyone think that p-ing off a staunch ally like Denmark, that controls access to the strategically important Baltic, is a good idea?

    Does anyone here even think Trump could reduce grocery prices?

    In other words, if you voted for Trump you allowed yourself to be suckered.

    Harris was an awful option. I mean a really awful option. I am not defending the Dems for putting her up. But is she as awful as Trump?

    For the rest, I agree with Michael Cook. “It’s an ominous start to Trump 2.0”

    But, tell me, Mr Cook. Would you have voted for Trump had you been a US citizen?.
  • mrscracker
    I was looking for news about the fires & happened to see this headline in the LA Times:

    “The U.S. should acquire Greenland (peacefully). But Trump saying so makes it harder”

    By Jonah Goldberg
    Columnist
    Jan. 14, 2025
  • Anon Emouse
    commented 2025-01-15 10:33:06 +1100
    Lisa-

    Don’t hold your breath, I don’t think he’d risk upsetting the trademarks China granted both him and his daughter.

    https://apnews.com/article/0a3283036d2f4e699da4aa3c6dd01727
  • Lisa Nicholas
    commented 2025-01-15 03:57:57 +1100
    I don’t know how seriously Trump proposes these crazy takeovers, but I recognize that what motivates them is not simply freewheeling empire-building but a concern to create a counterbalance to the increasing hegemony of the CCP on many formerly free Western societies. That’s what the Panama Canal remark is about — wresting a US-built canal back from the control of the Chinese. Similarly, Canada has been excessively friendly to Chinese influence, and Greenland obviously has strategic value re: defense of North America. Trump is such a loose cannon that I would not presume to judge what he will actually try to do, but I am encouraged that he wants to counterract Chinese influence — which most Americans are barely aware of, it seems, and which the previous administration did little to curtail.
  • Anon Emouse
    commented 2025-01-15 01:03:18 +1100
    Peter -
    Pretty sure Denmark controls Greenland right now, and I don’t think that your paranoid delusions are based in reality
  • mrscracker
    It sounds odd but really if the folks in Greenland and Denmark were ok with it, it might not be a bad idea as a buffer zone.
    Canada is not interested in becoming a part of the States. I think they made that pretty clear back in 1812.
  • Peter Sammons
    commented 2025-01-14 23:07:40 +1100
    Would it be better if China and/or Russia controlled Greenland? Because that is the very real threat now. Trump is right to seek to bring Greenland more clearly into the newly emerging geo-political (western) sphere. Since the EU has proved itself incapable of defending itself, it will not defend Greenland. Someone has to.
  • Anon Emouse
    commented 2025-01-14 21:20:05 +1100
    And with the release of the special counsel’s report – it makes it clear Trump would have been convicted had Aileen Cannon not interfered in behalf of Trump.

    This nation really does have two tiers of justice – one for the rich, and one for the rest of us.
  • Anon Emouse
    commented 2025-01-14 03:15:41 +1100
    To be clear that’s four years of insane policy under Trump that should have served as a warning
  • Anon Emouse
    commented 2025-01-14 02:42:01 +1100
    If only there were four years of insane foreign policy that we had before this.

    I guess this is better than “woke” huh Michael
  • Michael Cook
    published this page in The Latest 2025-01-13 22:23:52 +1100