Donald Trump's re-election rhetoric has sparked a firestorm over his imperialist hints toward Greenland, Canada, and Panama. Analysts remain divided on whether these proposals, rooted in his real estate mindset, serve genuine security interests or merely reflect his trademark flair for bold deals.
Trump's Territorial Ambitions Raise Questions on National Security
On "CNN This Morning," hosts and guests attempted to decipher Trump's imperialist threats directed toward Greenland, Panama, and Canada.
Since his re-election on November 5th, the president-elect has entertained ideas of merging the United States and Canada and taking control of the Panama Canal and Greenland through economic or military means. He has justified these territorial expansions by claiming they are necessary for national security.
According to Republican strategist Kristen Soltis Anderson, Trump is attempting to highlight the fact that US involvement in other crises around the world would be counterproductive. Trump believes that we've gotten ourselves into too much trouble, but that this is actually working out for the best. This is in our hemisphere, it's vital for us to accomplish it, and she feels that Donald Trump sees it as a huge real estate deal, which is why he's so enthusiastic about it.
Real Estate Deals or National Interests?
One thing that Anderson brings up is that all it is is Donald Trump trying to re-apply the same playbook he has used for decades to handle the US government.
Legal expert Elliot Williams of CNN acknowledged that Trump was not entirely serious about his imperialist aspirations, but he warned against completely disregarding his remarks.
When asked about the assertions made by the former president and president-elect four years ago, Williams stated that while some of them were absurd, there was some truth to them, The Raw Story shares.
The Legal Framework of Territorial Ambitions
In a nutshell, yes, we could theoretically takeover another country if we wanted to under military law. We find ourselves back where we started: evaluating the gravity of the former president's illogical, borderline insane plans. That may be America in the future, but it's unclear what comes next, he says.
Susan Wild, a former U.S. House member who was unsuccessful in her re-election campaign in November, brought up the fact that Greenland is an autonomous part of Denmark, a NATO co-founding nation.
She emphasized that Trump hasn't completely ruled out the possibility of resorting to military force; attacking Greenland would constitute an invasion of a NATO member state; and per Section 5 of the NATO treaty, every NATO member state has a duty to defend any of its allies. Democrat Wild, who was a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, stated that the idea that we could do it through an invasion of Greenland is just absurd.
Trump's Negotiation Strategy Under Scrutiny
Anderson went back to her original point and conceded that Trump may be serious about attacking his allies, but she still maintained her original stance.
"Have me back on the show, show me this clip of me saying we're not going to invade Greenland, and you can tell me I'm dumb," Anderson remarked. "You can tell me I'm foolish. We're not going to invade Greenland.
He thinks Donald Trump views this like a real estate deal and says all alternatives are on the table to have the strongest negotiation position, adding it may seem ludicrous. "We're in for four more years, but this is totally in line with how Donald Trump words," Anderson concluded.
Business Times has reached out to Donald Trump for comments.
