President-elect Donald J. Trump refused Tuesday to rule out the use of military or economic coercion to force Panama to relinquish control of the canal built by the United States more than a century ago and to push Denmark for sale Greenland in the United States.
During a rambling, hour-long news conference, Mr. Trump repeatedly returned to the theme of American sacrifice in building the canal and falsely accused China of exploiting it today. Asked if he could order the military to force Panama to give it up – in violation of treaties and other agreements made during the Carter administration – or to do the same with Greenland, he replied: “No, I can.” I can’t vouch for either of these.
“We need it for our economic security – the Panama Canal was built for our military,” he said. Asked again whether he would rule out the use of military force, he replied: “I’m not going to commit to that.” You may need to do something.
Mr. Trump’s statements took his repeated calls to expand American territory to a new level, one that is sure to upset three American allies: Panama; Denmark, which manages Greenland’s foreign and security affairs; and Canada, which he called America’s “51st state.” On Tuesday, however, he clarified that he was not joking, suggesting that if Canada remained a sovereign state, the financial cost of its trade relations with the United States could be crushing.
Perhaps Mr. Trump was pretending to have an advantage in the negotiations. Yet since the days of William McKinley, who engaged in the Spanish-American War in the late 19th century and eventually took American control of the Philippines, Guam, and Puerto Rico, an elected American president n has he ever so blatantly threatened to use force. expand the country’s territorial borders.
This is a reminder that Mr. Trump’s definition of “America First” is anything but isolationist. He approaches American foreign policy with the mind of a real estate developer, with a penchant for land grabbing.
He insisted that he would not be deterred by the treaty signed with Panama, which was ratified by the Senate in 1978 by a vote of 68 to 32, just beyond the two-thirds majority required by the constitution. He claimed that returning control of the canal to Panama was a bad idea – arguing that he was reluctant to say so as the country buried former President Jimmy Carter, who negotiated the deal. He then returned, repeatedly, to criticize Mr. Carter’s judgment.
“He was a very good person,” Mr. Trump said. “But it was a big mistake,” he added. “It cost us the equivalent of a trillion dollars.”
Regarding Canada, Mr. Trump, when pressed, threatened to use “economic force”, not military force, to unite Canada and the United States, implying that the United States would reduce their purchases of Canadian products.
He said he would use tariffs to hamper Canada’s ability to assemble cars and sell them in the United States, then accused Canada of not contributing enough to American defense. He made no reference to NORAD, the combined U.S. and Canadian defensive effort that is considered a military model of an interoperable military early warning system, managed equally by two allies. It is at the heart of American air and missile defense.
He continued his efforts Tuesday evening, posting maps on social media showing Canada as part of the United States.
He also said at the press conference that he would “impose very high tariffs on Denmark” if it did not cede Greenland to the United States, before questioning Denmark’s legitimacy on Greenland.
The threats, vague and informal as they are, are just one part of a series of statements Mr. Trump has made about his plans when he takes office in less than two weeks. He said the Gulf of Mexico would be renamed the Gulf of America, although it was unclear how seriously he took the effort.
He said NATO members, who have been slow to meet their commitment to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, should now prepare for a world in which they have to spend 5 percent.
“They can all afford it, but they should be at 5 percent, not 2 percent,” he said, before threatening again not to defend any NATO ally who he said , would not contribute sufficiently to the system. Mr. Putin has used such threats in the past to sow division within NATO, an alliance he has been reluctant to undertake directly, even if it helps arm Ukraine.
Mr. Trump’s criticism of NATO is not alone: Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Biden have all pressed the cause, and the greatest progress toward achieving it. The 2% target took place during Mr. Biden’s term, a fact he celebrated at the NATO summit in Washington in July to mark the alliance’s 75th anniversary.
And even some European leaders, when speaking privately, say they agree that the target should be raised to 3% if Europe is to have any hope of mustering the military might needed to deter Russia in the decades to come. They often add that there is no political basis for spending at this level.
But they may be driven to do so by necessity if they are convinced that the United States will not come to their aid. “I would have loved to say yes, we will protect you even if you don’t pay, but that’s not how life works,” Mr. Trump told reporters.
Mr. Trump also reiterated his threat that “all hell will break loose in the Middle East” if hostages held by Hamas are not released before Inauguration Day, repeating the threat four times.
But it was Mr Trump’s views on US territorial expansionism that were most striking at the press conference, and therefore unrelated to international law.
In December, when Mr. Trump stepped up his calls to buy Greenland and voiced his complaints about the way American ships were treated as they passed through the Panama Canal, Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group said noted that the arguments put forward by Mr. Trump had resonance. justifications put forward by Russian President Vladimir V. Putin for invading Ukraine.
But piecing together Mr. Trump’s series of posts on these issues on social media and listening to his complaints at his private Florida club, Mar-a-Lago, one thing is clear: He is building a national security case for why an American takeover of Greenland. and the Panama Canal Zone is needed.
He noted Tuesday that Chinese and Russian ships were appearing around Greenland, an apparent demonstration of those countries’ growing interest in shorter maritime and military routes after global warming loosened and shrank the ice fields, making them more practicable. He argued that China, which controls two ports near the canal, was operating the canal itself; it’s not.
After Mr. Trump responded to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation on Monday by writing on social media that “many people in Canada LOVE being the 51st state,” Mr. Bremmer noted in a post on American imperialism is back. »
In fact, this is often how Mr. Trump dismissed Danish leaders’ statements that Greenland is not for sale, as well as similar comments from Panama, at the press conference. The only question now is whether he is increasing the pressure for negotiation purposes or whether he will actually carry out his threats.
