Neo-Imperialism with American Characteristics

Barely days into the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump as the 47^th President on January 20^th, the comity of nations is getting ready for a new era. Trump’s elevation comes at a time when the geopolitical stature of the US is on a relative decline. Be as it may, a change in political dispensation in the US, the lone superpower is bound to have a pertinent impact on the world order.

Trump's pompous statements on Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal have alerted the world of the diplomatic trajectory that would befall. Joined at the hip, all these three issues are pivotal for the US quest to dominate the Arctic region and maritime shipping lanes.

Trump’s interest in Greenland and Canada are formidably linked to US pursuit to bolster its presence in the Arctic region. China’s rapid strides to actively enter the Arctic region are making Washington uncomfortable.

Forthright about his plans to take over the world’s largest island, Greenland, in December Trump announced “For purposes 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”. In his 45-minute confrontational call with Denmark Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, five days before his inauguration, as per insiders, Trump once again mounted pressure on Denmark. He renewed his threats to wrest Greenland even as PM Frederiksen argued that it was up to Greenland itself to make a decision on independence.

Trump’s undisguised expansionist moves drew quick reactions, for his awkward interventions are bound to intensify geopolitical conflicts. His announcements replete with resurrecting American hegemony, coercion and recolonisation all under the guise of “MAGA” are meted fairly with criticism and rebuke. Trump’s attempt to buy Greenland is thus far, America’s fourth attempt to purchase the island.

In 1867 US Secretary of State William H Seward negotiated the purchase of Alaska from Russia and the islands of St. Thomas and St. Jones from Denmark. He even recommended the acquisition of Iceland and Greenland from Denmark.

Again in 1910, US Ambassador to Denmark Francis Egan strongly exhorted that the US trade Mindanao for Greenland and the Danish West Indies; Denmark could in turn trade Mindanao to Germany for Northern Schleswig. Egan made this based on inputs from his friends and was circulated by the US government. But after Denmark regained Northern Schleswig after Germany’s defeat in World War I followed by the 1920 Schleswig plebiscite, this proposal was never made by the US.

Greenland was claimed by both Norway and Denmark. But after the two separated, Denmark strengthened its claims over Greenland by offering support to the Inuit migrants, especially during the Little Ice Age period when living conditions became extremely harsh. Denmark’s claims were further bolstered by the International Court of Justice ruling of 1933 which asserted its position on Greenland.

During the Second World War when Germany invaded Denmark, Danish ambassador Henrik Kauffman signed a treaty with President Roosevelt authorising the establishment of American bases on the island. The Thule Air Base of Greenland served as the northern base of the USAF.

In 1946 the US State Department official John Hickerson deemed Greenland a “military necessity” and “indispensable for the safety of the US”. He strongly recommended its acquisition from Denmark. Accordingly, Secretary of State James Byrnes made a formal offer to Danish Foreign Minister Gustav Rasmussen to purchase Greenland.

The memorandum indeed made two offers- a 99-year lease of the island with the US bearing complete responsibility for its defence and the second being the direct purchase of the island for 100 million USD in gold bullion. While the proposal was rejected over reports of non-endorsement by President Truman, the US retained its bases in Greenland.

Greenland joined NATO in 1949 and served as an important launch pad for American missiles. It houses the US’s early warning missile defence system. Greenland was granted autonomy in 1979 and exited the European Union in 1985.

During the Cold War period, Denmark heavily relied on the US to defend Greenland. Indeed in 1968 both Denmark and the US governments worked together following a B52 bomber crash into the sea ice close to Thule. The bomber carried four thermonuclear bombs and to decontaminate the entire region, countries launched Project Crested Ice for eight months.

During his first term, Trump evinced his interest in purchasing Greenland in 2019 eliciting sharp reactions. The Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called it an “absurd” offer. Trump’s reiterations on 7^th January 2025 have got Denmark on its heels. Danish Defence Minister pledged Euro 1.3 billion for Denmark’s Arctic Command.

Coinciding with Trump Jr’s visit to Greenland, Danish King Frederikson reissued a royal coat of arms that prominently featured the symbols of Greenland and the Faroe Islands. In his New Year speech, he said, “We are all united and each of us committed for the kingdom of Denmark. From the Danish minority in South Schleswig – which is even situated outside the kingdom – and all the way to Greenland. We belong together”.

Greenland Prime Minister Mute Egede rejected Trump’s proposal saying, “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.” Trump’s statement accelerated Greenland’s Constitution drafting process and spurred dreams for freedom. With elections scheduled before April 2025, Greenland is likely to be independent.

Instead of indulging in strategic investment negotiations with an independent Greenland which could have been a mutually beneficial scenario, Trump’s fanatical fixation to acquire the Artic Island is freaking out its European allies. Endowed with rich natural resources including rare earths and located in the Arctic Circle at the crossroads of the North Sea Route of Russia, Greenland is a formidable strategic asset.

This unsinkable naval base strategically located at the GUIK gap (Greenland UK and Iceland) is an important maritime chokepoint through which Russia’s Northern fleet can enter the Atlantic. The climate change has made the North Sea Routes a veritable reality. Hence, Greenland is pivotal for the NATO. Regular patrolling and controlling of this region are essential to ensure open sea lines of communication between the US and Europe. British Royal Naval used to survey this region but with its Naval strength depleting, the Russian and Chinese ships are creeping across the Atlantic.

The US could enhance its Arctic presence and probably give China a run for its money by negotiating strategic investments in Greenland. But Trump’s muscular threat, “to tariff Denmark at a very high level” coupled with his warning that, “they should give up (Greenland)- because we need it for national security. That’s for the free world” have raised fresh doubts about the real intentions of Trump.

The competition for the Arctic is certainly warming up. Ironically, the biggest naysayer of climate change, Trump, at the helm, is heralding a policy to mitigate the consequences of the changing geopolitical realities of a melting Arctic.

Ukraine conflict has ruptured the relative calm of the Arctic that remained largely insular despite geopolitical turbulences elsewhere. But now things are changing. Russia is a major stakeholder of the Arctic region with over 50% of its territory spanning the Arctic Circle. Russian dependency on China increased since the 2022 Ukraine conflict. Leveraging this dependency, China is eyeing to become an active player in the Arctic region.

China self-proclaimed itself as a ‘near-Arctic State’ in 2012 and made public its aspirations to become a “Polar Power” in 2014. Soon Beijing unveiled the ‘Arctic Silk Road’ framework to capitalise on the economic benefits from the impending Arctic thaw. As part of its “Arctic Strategy” China steadily intensified direct and indirect scientific cooperation with Arctic States. In 2018 China launched its first indigenously built icebreaker Xue Long 2 for scientific exploration along the maritime Artic route or the Northern Sea Routes.

Russia with a large fleet of 40 icebreakers and two combat icebreakers operated by Rosatomflot along with China’s rapid build of icebreakers are a dominant force in the Arctic while the US continues to struggle with its ancient icebreakers. The US’s Polar Security Cutter Program grappling with delays finally purchased its first civilian icebreaker in decades in December 2024 while Beijing unveiled its fourth icebreaker recently.

For decades, the US has neglected the Arctic. Waking up to the burgeoning Sino-Russian Arctic collaboration, the US administration announced a slew of fresh sanctions on January 13 making Russian Arctic crude sales difficult. These sanctions have indeed forced South Korea to step back from building any icebreakers for Russia.

US’s sudden urgency to dominate the Arctic is indeed at the heart of Trump’s statement of making Canada its 51^st state. The US hardly has any toehold in the Arctic. It doesn’t even have a deep port in the region. For decades, the US and Canada had differences over the Northwest Passage (NWP). Canada declared that all water within the Canadian archipelago and the water routes in the NWP are its internal waters over which it has full control and authority. But the US deems the NWP as an international strait.

Trudeau's government reasserted the Canadian position in the 2019 Arctic and Northern Policy Framework. It states- “Canada’s Arctic sovereignty is longstanding and well established….. Canada will continue to exercise the full extent of its rights and sovereignty over its land territory and its Arctic waters, including the Northwest Passage”.

President George Bush in the 2009 National Security Presidential Directive and Homeland Security Presidential Directive distinctly enunciated the US stance which reads, “The Northwest Passage is a strait used for international navigation, and the Northern Sea Route includes straits used for international navigation; the regime of transit passage applies to passage through those straits”. President Obama reaffirmed the position in his 2013 National Strategy for the Arctic Region.

Canadians and more so Canadian Indigenous People strongly proclaim that “the Arctic is a fundamental part of its heritage, its identity as a country and its future”. With Trump breathing down its neck, to strengthen its Arctic dominance, Canada has recently bid for 12 Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) Submarines. Unfortunately, the Canadian Navy which is in shambles and withering is incapable of defending the High North.

The US is lagging in the Arctic race. The late realisation that has dawned on Washington is the reason for Trump’s sabre rattling. Though Trump has ruled out using force, he slapped 25% tariffs on Canada effective from February 1. In his latest offer, Trump obliged to revoke the tariffs if Canada conceded to a merger with the US.

In equal measure, Trump’s pugnacious remarks have irked Panamanians who consider the Panama Canal central to their identity. According to a study by IDB Invest, nearly 23.6 % of Panama’s annual income is generated from the Canal which accrues a profit of $ 5 billion.

Panama has struck a deal with the US to protect its freedom from Colombia. President Roosevelt sent gunboats to the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to assist Panama in getting independence from Colombia. Soon, the US deployed men from the Caribbean to undertake the arduous canal construction. It controlled the Canal which became a vital asset for American commerce.

The US paid Panama $10 million for the territory and $250,000 every year since 1914. The Canal divided the country into two. The area controlled by the US was off-limits to the Panamanians. This turned the natives restive and riots broke out in 1964. Finally, in 1977, President Jimmy Carter reached an agreement with Panama leader Colonel Omar Torrijos to jointly operate the Canal. In December 1999, the Canal was completely handed over to Panama. The defining features of the US-Panama agreement are the Treaty concerning Permanent Neutrality and non-discriminatory tolls. The final agreement bestowed the US the right to intervene militarily to keep Panama Open.

Trump asserting his protestation announced to ‘take back’ Panama Canal for the “ridiculous, highly unfair” fees in his inauguration speech. Earlier he avowed, “This complete rip-off of our country will immediately stop, if shipping rates were not lowered” and added, “We will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, quickly and without question”.

Nearly 5% of the global maritime tariff passes through the Canal. The US is the leading user of the Canal followed distantly by China and Japan. When the world was busy with the transfer of Hong Kong from the UK, Hutchinson Ports of China obtained the contract to operate two important ports close to the Canal- Balboa on the Pacific coast and Cristóbal on the Atlantic side in 1997. This contract was renewed for 25 years in 2021. Over the years, China aggressively increased its presence in Panama with infrastructure building.

Catering to the burgeoning freight traffic, Panama expanded the Canal with a third set of gates for the passage of high tonnage carriers by 2016. The first cargo to pass the Canal belonged to China. Around the same time, Panamanian President Juan Carlos Varela severed ties with Taiwan and became the first Latin American country to join BRI in 2018.

China is now the major trading partner of the Latin American countries after the US. It is emerging as a dominant force in Latin America and the Caribbean; the proverbial backyard of the US. Raising concerns over China’s increased engagement in the region, the US South Command indicated that China is building around 40 ports in and around the Panama Canal. Competing Chinese interests are posing a big threat to American interests. Implicitly so, Trump is invoking the Monroe.

As per the US Constitution, the President has the executive power to interpret and terminate treaties. But Trump’s bellicose statements coupled with repeated assertions including the use of force surmised his blatant violation of international norms which Washington accuses the authoritarian regimes of.

Trump’s irascible grounds for acquiring Greenland and coercive posturing for the merger of Canada made under the garb of security of a “free world” reeks of hegemonistic expansionism. Trump’s perspicuous opening remarks, “I will, very simply, put America first. Our sovereignty will be reclaimed” and his menacing statements on Panama Canal, Greenland and Canada are evincive of Xi Jinping’s New Year speech, “We Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to one and the same family”.

If coercion and intimidation are permissible for a democratic US for national security, should Russia be subjected to global indignation for the Ukraine conflict as Ukraine was part of the erstwhile Soviet Union. Logically, China’s Middle Kingdom dream, Turkish Caliphate rationale must also be licit.

In his pursuit to control the entire Western Hemisphere including the High North, Trump is ushering the US into the 19^th century of traditional power play. While China is smartly taking over the world with its Digital Silk Route ramping up techno-dependencies of the developing countries.

As America transcends from neo-liberalism and runaway idealism to an era of neo-imperialism of “might makes right”, Trump’s hegemonistic statecraft can be an anathema to the “rule-based order” that the West passionately advocates. Given the immense heft of the US, the geopolitical realism that Trump attempts to assert would invariably return to the doctrine of “power submits to power” where confrontation would become a norm.

References

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. MyIndMakers is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this article. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of MyindMakers and it does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.

Comments

Ramaharitha Pusarla

Contributor Profile

Military & Strategic Affairs