Donald Trump’s recent revival of claims over Greenland, alongside his comments about Canada and the Panama Canal, signals a dramatic shift in global discourse. Trump’s assertions, dismissed by some as posturing, tap into a broader unraveling of the post-World War II international order. In this emerging post-UN world, where international law is increasingly sidelined, such ambitions—no matter how far-fetched—find fertile ground.
A World Governed by Power, Not Principles
Trump’s vision, couched in the language of strategic necessity, positions Greenland as a geopolitical asset and a symbol of Europe’s failure to invest adequately in its own defense. This is not an isolated fantasy; it is an extension of the trends we already see. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its war in Ukraine illustrate the decline of international norms. Israel’s expansion into Palestinian territories, with the tacit support of the United States and Europe, underscores how global powers selectively enforce international law.
These precedents pave the way for Trump’s argument: if Russia, Israel, and other nations can pursue territorial ambitions in defiance of global norms, why shouldn’t the United States? Greenland, rich in resources and vital to Arctic geopolitical strategy, becomes a symbolic focal point for these power dynamics.
Greenland and Indigenous Grievances
Trump’s claims over Greenland intersect with long-standing grievances of the Inuit population. While Greenland enjoys autonomy as a Danish territory, Indigenous Greenlanders have expressed dissatisfaction with Denmark’s governance, citing economic disparities, cultural erosion, and a lack of meaningful self-determination. Trump’s rhetoric, though steeped in opportunism, could resonate with some Greenlandic Inuit who see little benefit from Copenhagen’s rule. The idea of aligning with a global superpower like the United States might appeal to those seeking to challenge their colonial legacy.
Similarly, in Canada, Indigenous communities have long suffered systemic mistreatment, from violations of land rights to the lack of clean drinking water in many First Nations communities. Trump’s remarks about Canada’s control over strategic resources could even find unlikely allies among Indigenous populations who feel abandoned by Ottawa.
To be sure, the U.S. has not been a shining example of effective and equitable Indigenous relations—but Trump’s rhetoric exploits a painful reality: colonial histories and unresolved injustices leave many Indigenous peoples skeptical of the status quo. By positioning the United States as a potential disruptor of these dynamics, Trump taps into both discontent and pragmatism.
Could Greenland Follow the Saudi-Egypt Model?
While Trump said he would not rule out the use of military force, that is not the only way to acquire new territories. Denmark might consider a model akin to Egypt’s recent transfer of the Tiran and Sanafir islands to Saudi Arabia. Despite their strategic importance, the handover was carried out with little international controversy, framed as a pragmatic decision to strengthen bilateral relations and mutual interests. Greenland, in this context, could be seen not as an immutable Danish possession but as a geopolitical bargaining chip—an opportunity for Denmark to recalibrate its relationship with the United States in exchange for security or economic guarantees.
This approach, while peaceful, could still deepen the fractures in international law. It also raises the question: how far can pragmatism go before it becomes complicity in dismantling global norms? And what is the line between diplomatic negotiation and geopolitical bullying?
Europe’s Strategic Contradictions
Denmark and Europe more broadly are ill-prepared to counter such claims. Decades of underinvestment in defense have left Europe reliant on American security guarantees, and its inconsistent application of international law further weakens its position. While European nations condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine, many turn a blind eye to Israel’s violations in Palestine, undermining their credibility as defenders of global norms.
If Denmark were pressured to relinquish Greenland, it might face the same “pragmatic” calculation Egypt did. Greenland could be reframed as a liability rather than an asset—especially if Indigenous dissatisfaction grows.
The Panama Canal and American Hegemony
Trump’s remarks about the Panama Canal—built by the U.S. in the early 20th century and relinquished in 1999—reflect a broader American ambition to reassert dominance over key global infrastructure. While the canal is no longer directly controlled by the United States, its strategic importance remains undeniable. In a world where transactionalism reigns, Trump’s rhetoric positions such assets as bargaining chips in a new era of great-power rivalry.
The Collapse of Multilateralism
At the heart of these dynamics is the decline of the United Nations. The organization’s inability to address major crises—from Ukraine to Palestine—has delegitimized it in the eyes of many. As the UN’s influence wanes, nations are increasingly bypassing its mechanisms in favor of unilateral action.
This shift is not without consequences. Smaller nations and marginalized communities are left to navigate a world where borders are no longer defined by treaties but by the whims of powerful states. For Greenland’s Inuit and Canada’s Indigenous peoples, this could mean new opportunities—or new threats—in a world that prioritizes power over principle.
A Warning to the World
Trump’s claims over Greenland and the Panama Canal are not merely rhetorical. They reflect a broader trend toward a post-UN world where might makes right. If international law continues to erode, the future will be shaped not by cooperation but by competition and coercion.
For Europe, the United States, and the rest of the world, the choice is stark: recommit to reforming international institutions and upholding the principles of international law, or prepare for an era of raw power politics. Greenland’s fate—and that of countless other territories—may hinge on this decision.
The question is not whether Trump’s vision is realistic, but whether it represents the future we are willing to accept. If the UN cannot adapt, the global community will need to confront the harsh realities of a world where power trumps principle, and history’s unresolved injustices are exploited for strategic gain. The peaceful transfer of Tiran and Sanafir offers a model, but it also serves as a warning: once borders become negotiable, no line remains sacred.
Commentaires