President Donald Trump is attempting to usher in a new era of American imperialism. Is anyone raising the alarm?

One of the most alarming aspects of Trump’s agenda has to be his rhetoric saying the US should take land from other countries. The response in America is surprisingly muted. I can think of 3 reasons:

1. A belief that this is so preposterous, from a president who’s prolific in preposterous output, that it’s not to be taken seriously. You can’t treat it as all bluster when it comes from the president of the United States.
2. Many Americans are simply apathetic. This topic is worth its own blog post and has to be one of the principal reasons the moral fiber of America has deteriorated so.
3. Americans that reject imperialism, namely the anti-Trumpists, feel powerless. We presently are a minority in the halls of power, but we’re only truly powerless if we choose to be. I choose not to be, and that’s why I speak out against Trumpism. Writing in a blog isn’t enough. I see it as a starting point in a long game.

By my count, Trump has made the US takeover of the following countries and territories part of his agenda:

1. Canada
2. Greenland
3. Panama (Panama Canal Zone in particular, not the whole country, though I won’t put it past Trump)
4. Gaza Strip

I focus on Canada and Greenland in this post. Panama and Gaza are important too, and I shall revisit those in future posts.

Attention: Canadians and Greenlanders

I hope you and other non-Americans are reading this. The Trump presidency is a waking nightmare. I never expected our country to get in a crisis this bad, and of our own making no less. I’m as horrified about it as you are. Before the rise of Trumpism, I never contemplated a president threatening to annex foreign countries, let alone friends. I always thought we were the good guys, even if we made some colossal mistakes that eroded that standing (like invading Iraq on the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction).

I watch our president, how he speaks, what he says, and still can’t believe people think this is normal or that he is at all fit to be president. I think if most Americans from 2005 could time travel to 2025, they would say we elected a madman. Even to me, it feels far more like normal than it should. I’ve gotten so accustomed to it that most of the alarm and panic I felt in Trump’s first few weeks back in office have mostly subsided. I have a moral imperative as an American not to get complacent. As an American citizen, I have as much of a right as anyone else to make my mark to make the US that kind of country I want it to be.

You probably aren’t aware of how divided America is over Trump. I have friends and family on both sides: those that are equally horrified, and those who support Trump unconditionally. There have always been issues that have divided Americans. Historically we’ve been divided along lines like urban vs. rural, coastal vs. interior states, rich vs. poor, race, etc. The Trump divide is very individualized, and not along the traditional lines. Most Americans don’t talk (at least not openly) about Trump or his agenda, including those with strong opinions on Trump. I’m trying to do my part to break out of that pattern.

Trump’s expansionist designs

You can’t dismiss Trump’s rhetoric for several reasons:

• Trump is President of the United States. You have to be able to take the president at his word. You can’t just dismiss it because you don’t believe him. America elects their president to speak to the world on their behalf. The Trumpists did just that in electing Trump. To the Trumpists: you forced us to take what he says seriously, no matter how outlandish, because you elected him president.
• He talks about it repeatedly. This isn’t a one-off. (And even a bad one-off is bad enough.)
• The countries he’s threatening, aside from Canada, are essentially defenseless. Furthermore, they’re friendly countries. More to the point, they are not countries aligned with our most powerful enemies, namely China and Russia, that could expect those countries to come to their aid. Trump is threatening Canada, Greenland, and Panama. Why not Cuba, a weak longtime enemy right off our coast? (To be clear, we shouldn’t be invading Cuba.) It might be that the other 3 have something he actually wants. He might expect the people in these countries to be more passive in their resistance than Cuba.
• Trump has a pattern of endorsing this kind of behavior from Putin. Like “encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to “delinquent” NATO countries. Or, calling Putin’s 2022 reinvasion of Ukraine “brilliant”. He’s very public about his adulation of Putin. We need to consider that this genuinely reflects his values.

The US cannot conquer any part in the world just because it has a vital security interest there. It’s not just morally objectionable. Imperialism (or maybe I’m thinking of colonialism) is an inefficient way for a world power to impose its will on foreign lands. It works a lot better to partner with local governments. People are more inclined to submit to rule by their own than rule by foreigners. Against expectations, the UK became wealthier after divesting the British Empire post World War 2. I’d suppose it has something to do with that.

I can’t even believe I have to make an argument for not taking over countries that goes beyond the fact that it’s just plain wrong. Before the rise of Trump, that would have been enough for the great majority of Americans. Trump sees the world as a playing field to be divided up among the great powers.

Is expansionism ever justified?

This is an ugly question, but national security imperatives sometimes call for unpleasant and messy tradeoffs.

First, it would take a lot to convince me that the US needs to expand its territorial claims now or in the foreseeable future. I could even rule that out. I do rule out annexing friendly countries. Having reached a preeminent position in the world, especially post World War 2 (which included acquisition of overseas territory), the US doesn’t have to take land from other countries for national security reasons.

I’m open to the idea that there are legitimate security reasons for having oversees possessions. Whatever the reasons, they must be compelling, with the US having exhausted the voluntary/cooperative options in obtaining access to those territories. We are not at that point anywhere, least of all in friendly countries. With the possible exception of those who would start an unprovoked war against the US, having security justifications doesn’t excuse away dispossessing the rightful inhabitants of those lands.

There is precedence for the US and allies taking over foreign lands. The US still holds oversees territories like Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. It bothers me that there are lands that are part of the US that don’t have the representation in the US that we have in the States. They’re like second class citizens, and that shouldn’t be, not in the US. Frankly, I don’t know much about it. Maybe there is a semiautonomous status quo that the affected populations are satisfied with (like the relationship Greenland has with Denmark). I always took it as a given, certainly in the US, that consent of the governed with the right to political participation at all levels of government is the cornerstone of the compact between a legitimate government and its people. Or, as Abraham Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg Address: “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

Trump has tried to sell his annexation aspirations to the US public in part by touting the benefits to those who would be annexed. If Trump really had good intentions for the people he wants to annex, he would be tending to the unresolved issues of the people the US has already annexed.

British Invasion of Iceland

This is a fascinating case study of taking over foreign lands for exigent national security purposes.

The UK invaded Iceland in 1940, during World War 2. Iceland is strategically located along the maritime and air routes between North America and Europe, particular the UK. This made Iceland strategic for both the UK and Germany in controlling the North Atlantic sea lanes. Iceland’s preference was to stay out of the war and not have to pick sides. There had been growing concern in Iceland that the UK or Germany would take over the island. The Brits did it first, carrying out a bungling but bloodless invasion with no forcible resistance. As I understand, there was some relief among Icelanders when it was the Brits and not the Germans. I think the British attitude was something like: we feel terrible about it, but we have to take over your island for our security. The Brits did not harass the Icelanders, interfere with their government, or rule the people. The Brits really wanted Iceland to station military personnel and assets to combat the Germans. While the Brits didn’t give Icelanders a choice about occupying their country, the Brits and later the Americans did want them on their side and tried to do right by them. Today Iceland is a free and sovereign NATO partner.

Iceland in WW2 was a very different situation:

• We’re not at war.
• The US has long had strong security relationships with Canada and Greenland. Both are NATO allies (Greenland because Denmark is in NATO), whereas Iceland was neutral. If we need to ramp up our forward defense posture in those countries to counter a hostile power, we’re already well integrated and set to go.

Canada

We have close military ties with the Canadians. Already, Canada is reviewing its decision to buy the F-35. Frankly, I don’t see how they could proceed with such a buy with a country that has shattered a long-standing bond of trust. I also wonder if this means the breakup of NORAD, a joint command of the US and Canada that monitors and protects Canadian and US airspace. This would make both countries less safe. We’ve had a great relationship with Canada for ages and have been blessed to have the best neighbors and friends anyone could ask for. Throwing all that away is totally unforced, caused because America elected a destroyer of alliances.

I hope that if Trump did order war on Canada,

• Congress would refuse to declare war and would do everything in their power to restrain Trump, like remove him from office.
• The military would refuse orders to attack Canada. That so many Americans would vote in a president one could realistically expect to force uniformed officers to have to make such a grave decision, is a disgrace. It still bewilders me that they voted to give someone like Trump the nuclear codes.

Greenland

US security interests

Why does Trump “need” Greenland for national security purposes? Russia is the only plausible reason. That begs the question: why Greenland if he sees Russia as a credible US partner? I think Trump sees Greenland as a vulnerable and exposed target there for the taking.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Greenland and Denmark have long made Greenland available for US (and NATO) defense needs since the Cold War (Defense of Greenland agreement of 1951) and perhaps before then. If we have a legitimate national security need to pursue in Greenland (a new base, more early-warning radars, satellite-tracking stations, etc.), Greenland is likely to greenlight it. This in spite of the fact that we haven’t always been faithful tenants (Project Iceworm). By antagonizing Denmark and Greenland, Trump has probably made legitimate requests that previously would have been freely granted subject to pushback and suspicion. Doesn’t that make us less secure? I could see him using that as a cynical rationale for taking over Greenland. There’s the legitimate concern of Chinese or Russian encroachment in weak and exposed countries. (Chinese presence in the vicinity of the Panama Canal is a legitimate if highly overblown concern.) The fact that Greenland is part of Denmark, long a close and faithful US and NATO ally, is very helpful on this count, and this status quo will keep that from happening.

Luke Coffey’s article is worth a read. He says it perfectly: “…every American policy goal in Greenland can be pursued through our close and long-standing relationships with both the Greenlandic and Danish governments.”.

Minerals

I don’t know whether projections of Greenland’s mineral wealth are based more on

• assessments of geologists, or
• armchair speculation that because Greenland is a vast landmass which is mostly covered by an ice sheet that is receding due to global warming, there’s bound to be mineral resources waiting to be exploited.

My uninformed guess is that Greenland holds considerable untapped recoverable mineral resources.

There’s no disputing that minerals are vital to our economic and national security. (Perhaps we can soften our need for minerals by consuming less, but that’s another issue.) The way to secure access to vital minerals found only outside the US in recoverable quantities is to maintain positive, win-win relationships with countries possessing those resources. Whatever mineral resources are waiting to be exploited in Greenland, they’re already in friendly hands.

Greenland’s present export economy is mainly in fishing. Maybe Trump is a seafood lover.

Where do we go from here?

What do we Americans need to be doing now to thwart Trump’s expansionist agenda?

• Speak out.
• Contact your members of Congress.
• Elect Democrats in the next election cycle, not because they’re so great but because they’re the only alternative in the foreseeable future to the Republicans, who will do anything Trump commands them. Electing Democrats would be a welcome development, but the job doesn’t end there. We need to stay on them about checking Trump.
• Civil disobedience. This would be a new tack for most of us. But, we’ll need to up the ante without resorting to violence.
• I’m still figuring out the rest. Help me out.