In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular, Greenland, the ice-capped arctic island and autonomous territory of Denmark, has become a focal point of US global strategy.
Trump has been clear on his claims of US ownership of Venezuelan oil reserves, and has not minced words when it comes to his designs to control Cuba, Colombia and Greenland. His strategy is proving to be driven by resource control, the containment of adversarial forces and rebalancing of regional power. This is a logic that appeals to the safeguarding of national security, but in reality comes closer to economic nationalism and military expansionist aims.
The NSS details how the US would seek to restore its pre-eminence in the western hemisphere, and deny competitors the “ability to position forces or other threatening capabilities, or to own or control strategically vital assets” in the region. Presumably, this points to China and Russia.
Trump’s designation of Greenland within his strategic framework is noteworthy. Beyond voicing his wish to buy the island, Trump has made public that he sees Greenland as indispensable to US national security. This is likely thanks to its prime location along arctic shipping routes and for military radar, and its rich endowments of rare earth minerals. China has long controlled global supply chains of rare earths, so Trump’s vision of Greenland as being at the heart of strategic resource competition has seen the territory emerge from the rim of the arctic circle as a global focus point for critical minerals.
These shifts are indicative of US ambitions to rebuild “Fortress America,” not just through US Navy and Coast Guard redeployments for illegal immigration and drug smuggling crackdowns, but also through shoring up preferential access of US companies to resources and infrastructure throughout the western hemisphere. This is a wholesale geopolitical remodeling of everything from markets and resources to communication and energy.
Although packaged as a national security issue, it amounts to a serious blow to regional sovereignty and the international order. The strategy aims to position the US as the preferred partner of countries in the hemisphere by gradually forcing them to sever ties with China through economic, military and technological leverage. From the control of ports and communications infrastructure to interference in the trajectories and diplomatic choices of political parties, this is more than plain economic warfare, but clashes of entire value systems and modes of governance. Trump has been clear: US aid is no longer to be offered unconditionally, but to facilitate the undermining of adversarial external forces.
Against this backdrop, the contesting of Greenland is not just a spat over resources, but a real provocation of Denmark’s sovereignty as a NATO member. It signals to Europe that it can expect “America first” to override any pre-existing multilateral consensus. For Taiwan, Trump’s advocacy of a national security model that centers assets and revival of geopolitical power plays suggests that competition between the US and China over strategic control of the Indo-Pacific region is likely to intensify. Any regions or resources deemed to be of strategic value could become flashpoints.
With Trump’s statements on the Monroe Doctrine, asserting that it “was very important, but we forgot about it. We don’t forget about it anymore,” he reminds us that the US is no longer interested in just being the world’s police; it has re-emerged as a superpower poised to take resources by force. Greenland might just be the beginning. While the western hemisphere has already become an arena for Trumpism, the chill of the geopolitical storm brewing is starting to be felt worldwide.
Liao Ming-hui is an assistant researcher at the Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS