In a statement that has sparked international attention, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced his intention to use “economic force” to acquire control of the Panama Canal and Greenland. Citing concerns over economic security and China’s growing influence in key global infrastructure, Trump’s remarks invoke a complicated historical relationship between the United States and these territories. His rhetoric has reignited discussions about American imperialism, strategic assets, and the economic forces driving geopolitical maneuvers in the 21st century.
The Panama Canal: A Strategic and Historical Asset
The Panama Canal—an engineering marvel and vital trade route connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans—has long been a symbol of U.S. global influence. The canal’s history is deeply intertwined with American economic and strategic ambitions, starting in the early 20th century.
Origins of U.S. Control
In 1903, after supporting Panama’s independence from Colombia, the United States secured a treaty granting it sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone. The U.S. subsequently oversaw the construction of the canal, which opened in 1914. This infrastructure project was a monumental achievement that reshaped global trade routes, drastically reducing the time and cost of maritime travel.
For much of the 20th century, the canal was a cornerstone of U.S. economic and military strategy. It facilitated trade and ensured the rapid deployment of naval forces between oceans, solidifying America’s role as a global superpower. However, tensions over U.S. control simmered in Panama, culminating in negotiations that led to the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties. These agreements transferred the canal’s operations to Panama by the end of 1999.
The Chinese Influence
In recent years, China has expanded its economic footprint in Panama. Through its Belt and Road Initiative, China has invested heavily in Latin America, including port facilities and logistics hubs near the canal. Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong-based company, operates terminals at both ends of the canal. While these investments are ostensibly commercial, they have raised alarms in Washington over potential strategic vulnerabilities. Critics argue that Chinese control over key global trade chokepoints could undermine U.S. interests in the region.
Trump’s remarks highlight these concerns, suggesting a possible desire to reassert American dominance over the canal. However, such a move would likely face significant resistance from Panama and international stakeholders, given the legal framework established by the Torrijos-Carter Treaties and the canal’s importance as a neutral international waterway.
Greenland: A Land of Strategic and Economic Promise
While Trump’s comments about Greenland may seem audacious, they are not without precedent. The island, an autonomous territory of Denmark, has long been a subject of U.S. strategic interest due to its geographic location and abundant natural resources.
Historical U.S. Interest in Greenland
Greenland’s strategic importance dates back to World War II when the United States established military bases on the island to defend against German incursions. Following the war, Greenland became a critical node in the U.S. Arctic defense network during the Cold War. The Thule Air Base, established in 1951, remains a key installation for missile detection and early warning systems.
In 1946, the U.S. offered Denmark $100 million (approximately $1.3 billion in today’s dollars) to purchase Greenland. Denmark declined, but the proposal underscored the island’s perceived value as a geopolitical asset. In recent years, Greenland’s importance has grown due to climate change, which is melting Arctic ice and unlocking new shipping routes and resource extraction opportunities. The Arctic region is estimated to hold vast reserves of oil, gas, and rare earth minerals, making Greenland a coveted prize in the race for economic and strategic dominance.
Economic and Geopolitical Factors
China has also sought to deepen its ties with Greenland, investing in mining projects and proposing infrastructure developments. This has further fueled U.S. concerns about Beijing’s ambitions in the Arctic. Trump’s 2019 proposal to buy Greenland, though met with ridicule, reflected genuine strategic considerations. Securing Greenland could enhance America’s control over Arctic resources and shipping lanes while countering China’s growing influence.
However, Denmark and Greenland’s leaders have repeatedly rejected the idea of selling the territory. Greenland’s government has emphasized its commitment to self-determination, while Denmark’s stance underscores the importance of respecting sovereignty in international relations. Trump’s latest comments, framed in terms of “economic force,” risk further straining relations with these allies.
Balancing Economic Security and Global Stability
Trump’s focus on economic security reflects broader concerns about global competition, particularly with China. The Panama Canal and Greenland represent critical nodes in the global economy, offering control over trade routes, natural resources, and strategic positioning.
While Trump’s rhetoric may resonate with segments of the domestic audience concerned about China’s rise, the challenges of modern geopolitics demand a nuanced approach that balances economic interests with diplomatic engagement and respect for sovereignty.
