A CRITICAL EXAMINATION
President Donald Trump’s tenure as the President of the United States was marked by a series of unconventional and often controversial approaches to foreign and trade policy. Among these approaches, his controversial designs in Greenland, Canada, and Panama stand out as a testament to his real estate mindset. I will delve into Trump’s statements and actions concerning these regions, examining how his background in real estate, with its focus on profitability and strategic acquisitions, influenced his views on international diplomacy and territorial acquisitions.
GREENLAND “A SECURITY BLACK HOLE”
One of the most widely publicized instances of President Trump’s inclinations was his expressed interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark. Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, is the world’s largest island and is rich in natural resources such as minerals, oil, and gas. Its strategic location in the Arctic, a region of increasing global importance, also adds to its geopolitical significance.
In August 2019, President Trump’s interest in Greenland became public knowledge, and he confirmed it himself by stating, “Essentially, it’s a large real estate deal. A lot of things can be done. It’s hurting Denmark badly because they’re losing almost $700 million a year.” This statement epitomizes President Trump’s tendency to view foreign territories through a real estate transaction lens, focusing on financial metrics and potential profitability.
Denmark’s reaction was swift and unequivocal. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen described the idea as “absurd,” the proposal was met with widespread ridicule in Denmark and Greenland. However, Trump’s interest in Greenland was not without precedent; the United States had previously considered acquiring the island during the Truman administration in 1946 when geopolitical tensions were high and strategic locations were paramount. This historical context underscores the gravity of Trump’s approach, which was primarily seen as a manifestation of his transactional worldview, where sovereignty and national pride were secondary to economic opportunity.
However, acquiring Greenland would give the United States control of an island it sees as crucial to its defense. In October 2020, Reuters described Greenland as “a security black hole” for the United States and its allies and said its 27,000 miles (44,000 km) of coastline was challenging to monitor. This strategic importance is compounded by the increasing interest of other global powers, such as China, in the Arctic region.
President Trump’s interest in Greenland highlighted an underlying strategic calculation that resonated with American defense priorities. These priorities align with historical precedents where the US has sought to secure geographically significant territories to bolster its geopolitical stance. However, such acquisitions also come with potential diplomatic and economic costs, which must be carefully considered.
CANADA: A NEIGHBORLY AMBITION
President Trump’s relationship with Canada, America’s northern neighbor and close ally, was marked by significant tension and trade disputes. While there were no explicit attempts to acquire Canadian territory, Trump’s policies suggested a desire to assert dominance over Canada economically.
Renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which resulted in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), was a key aspect of Trump’s trade policy. Trump frequently criticized NAFTA as “the worst trade deal ever made,” and his administration pushed for more favorable terms for the United States. The negotiations were contentious, with Trump threatening tariffs on Canadian products and accusing Canada of unfair trade practices.
President Trump’s approach to Canada was emblematic of his broader strategy of leveraging economic pressure to achieve desired outcomes. His tactics echoed those of a real estate developer negotiating a high-stakes deal, where aggressive bargaining and public posturing were employed to secure better terms.
However, territorial expansion has been a recurrent theme in American history, dating back to the Republic’s early years. Many American political figures favored invading and annexing Canada, and the Articles of Confederation in 1777 even pre-approved the admission of the Province of Quebec (previously known as Lower Canada) to the United States.
American forces invaded the St. Lawrence River Valley during the Revolutionary War but were repelled. The Americans also fought the British and allied Indigenous peoples in the Ohio Country, which was then part of the southwest of Quebec. At the war’s end, the land south of the Great Lakes was ceded to the newly independent United States and became known as the Northwest Territory.
Renewed attempts to invade Canada occurred during the War of 1812. In response to the British impressment of American sailors on the high seas and British support for Indigenous resistance against American westward expansion, American forces once again invaded Canada. However, these efforts were repulsed, mirroring the outcomes of the earlier conflicts.
PANAMA: A GEOPOLITICAL PRIZE
Panama, a small Central American nation with significant strategic importance due to the Panama Canal, was also in President Trump’s orbit. The Panama Canal is a vital maritime route that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and the United States has long been interested in its control. Its historical significance and continued importance in global trade make it a geopolitical prize.
During his presidency, Trump made no overt moves to acquire Panama or the canal. However, his administration’s policies and actions reflected a desire to maintain and potentially expand American influence in the region. The Trump administration’s stance on Latin America focused on curbing migration, combating drug trafficking, and countering Chinese influence.
More broadly, Trump’s policy towards Panama and Latin America can be seen as an extension of his real estate philosophy. Securing advantageous positions and controlling valuable assets is paramount in real estate. Similarly, in geopolitics, ensuring access to and influence over strategic locations like the Panama Canal aligns with Trump’s broader vision of American dominance and economic security.
However, Panama’s significance is not merely historical but remains crucial to modern global trade. The Panama Canal facilitates about 40 percent of U.S. container traffic, making it an essential artery for commerce. The canal’s strategic importance naturally drew President Trump’s focus, particularly concerning the current operational status and the increasing influence of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) through its ownership of ports near the canal.
Trump raised alarms over the PRC’s expanding footprint, which poses a potential threat to U.S. interests in the region. The dominance of Beijing-owned ports in the canal’s approaches represents a strategic vulnerability, highlighting the need for vigilant oversight and robust diplomatic efforts. Rather than revisiting the debates surrounding the 1977 Carter-Torrijos treaty, the focus must be reinforcing the canal’s strategic significance, addressing legitimate concerns over Chinese influence, and ensuring sustained U.S. engagement.
Furthermore, it is imperative that the United States bolster its presence through private sector investments, enhance economic ties, and fortify its strategic position in the Western Hemisphere. By prioritizing diplomatic engagement and encouraging American businesses to invest in Panama, the U.S. can counterbalance the Chinese influence and safeguard its interests in this pivotal region.
THE REAL ESTATE MINDSET IN FOREIGN POLICY
President Trump’s interest in Greenland, his contentious dealings with Canada, and his strategic focus on Panama all underscore a broader theme in his foreign policy: applying a real estate mindset to international relations. This approach emphasizes transactions, economic metrics, and the pursuit of advantageous deals.
For Trump, who built his career on real estate development, the principles of property acquisition, leverage, and negotiation were deeply ingrained. When applied to foreign policy, these principles manifested in a transactional view of diplomacy, where countries and territories were evaluated based on their economic potential and strategic value.
While this mindset allowed Trump to approach international relations with a unique perspective, it also drew criticism for oversimplifying complex geopolitical issues. However, it also brought potential benefits, such as a focus on economic gain and strategic advantage. Sovereignty, cultural identity, and international norms often took a backseat to financial considerations and the pursuit of deals.
