On Trump's imperialist rhetoric and refusal to rule out the use of military force against a NATO ally.
Trump decided to start the new year with a few bangs.
American allies were just getting used to Trump’s (mostly implicit and at times explicit) threats to withdraw from NATO and let Russia do whatever ‘‘the hell they want” to delinquent members of the alliance.
But turns out, all this was just the diet version of Trump, and we are now getting the full sugar alternative - where Trump announced his goal of securing the Panama canal with the help of the U.S. military, essentially annexing Greenland, and ‘‘suggesting’’ that Canada should also join the U.S.
(side note: Greenland has a legitimate strategic value (which we shall discuss in the upcoming cables) and if they were to join the U.S. (provided that this was done fully voluntarily and by the consent of both Denmark and the people of Greenland), or (more realistically) entered a ‘‘free association’’ agreement with the U.S. (like Palau or Micronesia or Marshall Islands) the outcome would not be a bad one at all.)
It is really hard to explain Trump’s sudden desire to express expansionist desires.
But it won’t be hard to see the damage caused to America’s global standing and prestige if Trump refused to backtrack and was to continue on the current trajectory.
Leaving aside the preposterous desire to turn Canada into a 51st U.S. State (the chances of that happening are essentially zero), the threats of force in relation to Panama and Greenland are very damaging.
Most damaging is Trump’s refusal to rule out the use of military force in pursuit of Greenland’s acquisition.
Greenland of course falls under Denmark’s territorial jurisdiction and Trump is essentially threatening the use of force against a NATO ally.
It is of course very amusing for the domestic U.S. audience, but pretty shocking to our European allies.
Indeed, who would have guessed a couple of years ago that a French Foreign Minister would have to reiterate readiness to defend a EU territory against the even the U.S. or that a leader of Germany - a prime NATO ally - would warn the U.S. President against territorial conquest - highlighting that his desire to violate norms around borders and sovereignty put him in the same camp as Putin:
Borders must not be moved by force. This principle applies to every country, whether in the East or the West. In talks with our European partners, there is an uneasiness regarding recent statements from the US. It is clear: We must stand together.
It is of course astonishing that the U.S. would get berated by an ally and reminded of the core principles of international law which Washington itself led to enforce since the end of WWII.
But this is not just rhetoric of disappointment from an ally.
Trump’s pronouncement will actively harm the U.S. influence, prestige, and national security interests and undermine Washington’s ability to shape the global narrative in a US-friendly way.
Three implications are immediately apparent:
1) A narrative gift to the Kremlin.
We have often discussed how the true nature of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is quite different from the official ‘‘NATO expansion” and ‘‘national security’’ claims.
You only need to read Putin’s own essay from July 2021 and his claim that he was ‘‘returning the historical territories’’ (as well as his self-comparison to Peter The Great), to know that what drives Putin really is an imperialist/revisionist acquisition of Ukraine’s internationally recognized territory.
But formally, Russia’s ‘‘special military operation’’ has been justified (by Putin himself - in his invasion announcement speech on February 22, 2024) on national security grounds - that Russia had to take preemptive military action because Ukraine was being turned into a NATO bastion (a complete nonsense of course - and now he has a new NATO member on Russia’s borders - Finland.)
And when Trump lays claims on Greenland for the purposes of ‘‘national security’’, and thereafter refuses to rule out the use of military force against a NATO ally, he is in effect parroting Putin’s ‘‘justifications’’.
Could there be a better propaganda gift for Russia?
The Kremlin’s propaganda machine will now get to point at the brazen hypocrisy and inconsistency emanating from Washington: why should Russia be punished for something that the U.S. itself seems to be rather willing to do as well?
And unfortunately, this will land: at the time when America’s own major European allies have to warn the U.S. against breach of international law, of course this narrative of hypocrisy will stick - how could it possibly not?
2) Weakened soft power prestige and influence advantage vis-à-vis China.
The U.S. competes for the goodwill and political alignment of swing states in the Pacific.
Countries in the ASEAN, like Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, and a number of Pacific islands will play an important role in the upcoming decades.
All of the major countries of Southeast Asia will grow richer and more industrialized in the upcoming years and decades.
And with that comes political weight.
A lot of the aforementioned countries are currently hedging their bets between the U.S. and China.
And at the time when China continues to irritate its neighbors by making illegal territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. has traditionally positioned itself as the champion of international law and order: as a country that would offer backing and support when Beijing would inevitably trample on their rights.
Otherwise, there is little else to appeal with: most of these states trade more intensively with (and receive more foreign direct investment (FDI) and capital from) China than the U.S.
And when it comes to defense cooperation and armament, the U.S. is not willing to share advanced gear with countries like Indonesia or Vietnam (so they must rely on others like Russia, and perhaps in future, Turkey).
In other words, if you remove the fundamental appeal of the U.S. as an enforcer of their trampled rights, there is little else to defer to Washington over China -whenever a crucial moment to choose arrives.
These countries are already focusing on transactional relations with both China and the U.S., and if America’s unique value of an impartial guardian of rules and norms is undermined, then there is little incentive to switch away from that stance.
And Trump’s pronouncements in relation to Greenland signal and remind that the U.S. can be equally as self-interested and willing to breach core tenets of the international law as China.
So then why not continue as it is and keep playing both sides? Why trust or rely on the U.S.?
Trump’s rhetoric makes the job of diplomats in the Pacific much harder.
It furthermore grants rhetorical gifts to Beijing: China can now point out the hypocrisy and tell the U.S. to take a hike whenever American diplomats highlight Beijing’s breach of international law in the South China Sea.
(side note: let alone maintaining any possible moral high ground when it comes to Taiwan.)
3) Credibility of Trump’s threats and bluffs.
Trump likes to make threats and ‘‘negotiate hard’’.
In his mind, refusal to rule out the use of force in relation to acquisition of Greenland makes him appear both tough and unpredictable.
In other words, he thinks that by doing so he raises the cost of a no deal scenario - which in turn should strengthen his hand and persuade Denmark/Greenland to submit.
Usually, there wouldn’t be a problem with this logic.
It would work perfectly fine in relation to say Iran (agree to a deal or else I shall bomb your nuclear sites.)
But in this case, Trump’s usual tactics will almost certainly not work.
And this is simply because:
1) Denmark is a NATO ally, and 2) There is zero justification for the U.S. to use military force.
No Congress (no matter how MAGA-like) would approve use of force in this scenario.
Let alone his cabinet and high-ranking officials: the waterfall of resignations would doom his administration.
As such, his implicit threats are not persuasive at all.
And if they are not persuasive, then they are not credible.
And if these threats are not credible, then what else is not credible?
What about his demands that NATO must raise its spending to 5% of GDP?
Should NATO members believe that if they fail to act, Trump would pull out the U.S.? (especially when the U.S. itself is at around 3.4% of GDP.)
(side note: or should they think that Trump is deliberately coming up with an impossible figure to then use this noncompliance as an excuse to withdraw from the alliance.)
In other words, Trump is doing himself a disservice here: his future threats and demands from allies will land flat if he liberally resorts to outrageous declarations without any regard to facts on the ground (or just basic reality.)
So overall, these comments were extremely damaging to the U.S. as a state and to Trump as a political actor.
With all that said however, there is of course a legitimate geostrategic value to be found in Greenland.
And an additional U.S. presence (provided it is legal and secures consent of Greenland/Denmark) would most certainly benefit America.
And in the future post we shall discuss just that.
Great and necessarily calming comments. It is a shame we must drift through this menagerie of the absurd.