US president-elect Donald Trump’s surprise threat to retake control of the Panama Canal and his expansionist declaration that the US should own Greenland signal that the incoming US president would pursue a foreign policy unbounded by diplomatic niceties.
As Trump prepares to take office on Jan. 20, his aides have been preparing him to deal with two foreign policy crises: War in Ukraine and multiple conflicts in the Middle East, both of which the president-elect has promised to speedily resolve.
However, on Sunday, Trump was more focused on making threats against US allies like Panama and Denmark, which controls Greenland as an overseas territory. In previous weeks, it has been Canada which has had to weather his trolling that it should become the 51st state of the US.
Illustration: Tania Chou
Defenders of Trump’s approach say he is merely a forceful advocate of “America First” policies. That means brusquely defending America’s interests — economic or otherwise — when dealing with friends and largely disregarding consequences allies might face.
“The idea is that what’s good for America is good for the rest of the world,” said Victoria Coates, a high-ranking national security official during Trump’s first term. “So he takes a clear-eyed look at what are America’s interests in any given situation.”
In the case of Panama, Trump said the US should reassert control of the vital Central American waterway because Panama was charging shippers too much to use it, an allegation the Panamanian president vehemently denied.
Speaking to a crowd of supporters in Arizona, Trump said he would not let the canal fall into the “wrong hands,” warning of potential Chinese influence on the passage.
Two Trump foreign policy advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity, argued he was addressing a larger issue, one which they expect to be a focus of his second term: Growing Chinese influence over governments and economies in Latin America.
China does not control or administer the canal, but a subsidiary of Hong Kong-based CK Hutchison Holdings has long managed two ports located on the canal’s Caribbean and Pacific entrances.
“It’s all about leverage and flexing. The number two user of the Panama Canal is China and he’s trying to thwart their influence in Latin America,” said Tricia McLaughlin, an adviser to Vivek Ramaswamy, Trump’s choice to cochair a government efficiency commission with Tesla CEO Elon Musk.
Detractors point out his approach risks alienating key allies.
In some cases, public bullying could push natural friends into the orbit of competing major powers, like China and Russia, or make them less likely to strike an economic or security-focused deal with the US, they say.
Mayer Mizrachi Matalon, the conservative mayor of Panama City who has worn a Trump “Make America Great Again” hat, issued a blistering statement on Sunday. “We are not, nor will we ever be, a 51st state,” he said.
John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser in his first term who has since turned on the former president, said there are legitimate debates over the premiums Panama charges for passage through the canal, and also Greenland’s strategic importance to the US and NATO.
However, Trump is endangering the chance to have those discussions “because he couldn’t keep his mouth shut,” he added.
Trump was not averse to rebuking or threatening allies during his first term, especially European members of NATO, who Trump accused of spending too little on the alliance’s military defense.
Yet threatening such geographically close allies such as Canada and Panama weeks before he even takes office appears to show a greater willingness to use US power as a blunt instrument to extract concessions.
The White House declined to comment. Trump’s transition team did not respond to a request for comment.
On Sunday, Trump resurrected in a statement an idea he floated during his first term — that the US should buy Greenland, which has become an increasingly important strategic territory as Arctic trading routes open up due to climate change.
Some officials involved in the transition or close to Trump have informally discussed in recent weeks what an acquisition of the Danish territory would look like, three of those people told Reuters.
One potential option would be signing with Greenland a Compact of Free Association (COFA), should the island become fully independent from Denmark, which some polls have shown Greenlanders support in the long term.
Under a COFA, which the US currently holds with three Pacific island states, there is an extremely high degree of economic integration between the US and the relevant foreign country, though the foreign country remains independent.
Danish officials rebuffed Trump when he first expressed interest in acquiring the island during his first term, but he never lost interest in the idea, two of the associates and transition advisers said.
In recent weeks Trump has also mused about turning Canada into a US state, an idea that has little basis in reality, experts say.
Yet there is strategic thinking behind Trump’s trolling, said Elliott Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is unpopular at home and facing mounting calls to resign, Abrams noted. Trump has pledged to slap tariffs on Canadian imports unless it reduces the flow of migrants and drugs into the US.
“Trump is piling the pressure on Trudeau, I think it’s part of a negotiation over tariffs,” Abrams said. “I think you’ll see the same thing with Mexico at some point.”
McLaughlin, Ramaswamy’s adviser, agreed, saying: “It’s a message to Trudeau that you and Canada are the little brother. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you until you have paid your fair share in tariffs.”
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS