Trump would get Greenland and is serious on Panama Canal, Canada

(This is a reprint from NewsBred)

Donald Trump, US president in a week’s time, has set sights on grabbing Greenland, Panama Canal and Canada to live true to his election-slogan: “Make America Great Again (MAGA).”

He is prepared to go to war on Greenland and Panama but Canada, he believes, would submit to his economic sword. And ah yes, a “soft invasion” of Mexico is also on his mind.

Only when one thought Trump would pull the US back from wars of Ukraine and the Middle East, and scuttle the idea of going for China, we hear instead he is planning to enlarge the theatre of war.

This is a nation which pursues international diplomacy through wars in which peace has no place.

The US of today is like Dong Zhou, a Chinese general of the 2nd century who would throw lavish banquets with the side-spectacle of his captured enemies being severed off tongues and eyeballs or being burnt alive while toasts were being raised. Zhou’s ministers were made to drink wine mixed with human blood: Shouldn’t they enjoy it if they liked war so much?

And so it’s with the United States which treats enemies and allies alike when it comes to wars.

Greenland is in the American sphere but a protectorate of Denmark. Only last year Denmark had signed a “defense cooperation agreement” and declared the US to be its strongest ally. It was among the first NATO nations to supply F-16 jets to Ukraine. It’s hawkish and bites when the US only asks it to bark. But now it’s own Greenland it must part with to its insatiable masters.

Not many think that Denmark would resist. A doormat does what a doormat is supposed to do. Greenland, but for foreign affairs, is as good as independent. But if it wants to be independent in letter, it could hold a plebiscite among its 56,000 inhabitants. Its residents then can choose to be independent — or merge with the United States!

Trump on his part doesn’t see it a problem. A place which lives on Denmark’s largesse — $500 million a year — could very well opt for the United States if a million dollar is wired into each one of Greenlander’s account. It would be a better spend than what Elon Musk did on twitter.

And if Denmark resists, pressured by the other European Union members for such a capitulation would only inflame the fire of right-wingers in the Old Continent, could Trump resort to attacking a fellow NATO member?

And would that mean the delicious prospect of all NATO members, bound by the obligation, warring for a fellow NATO nation against the very NATO head which feeds their security?

How is then the United States any different from Russia for this “unprovoked aggression” in NATO’s eyes?

Most likely it won’t come to pass.

Denmark — and Europe — would find a way to give Trump what he wants. After all this is a continent which didn’t mind its energy guarantee (Nord Stream) being wrecked by its master, so enslaved it is to Washington’s command.

And that’s because a simple Trump demand to European vassals to raise their military expenditure by 5% of their GDP would cause an unimaginable economic wreckage. And if Trump resorts to raising tariffs, burgeoning inflation would cause more governments to fall than just France, Austria or Germany’s of recent weeks.

That’s why Trump blusters because he knows he can get away with it. All these excuses of Greenland being a vital cog to US security, a route to Arctic access, increasingly navigable due to global warming, where Russia foremost and then China have spread themselves large, is a thin excuse. As is the drooling prospect of 43 of world’s 57 most important minerals being present in Greenland which would ensure US’ supremacy for decades to come.

It also won’t be the first. The US did purchase the Virgin Islands from Denmark who were financially drained after the World War 1. So, the United States could either (a) buy the Greenlanders plebiscite in its favour or (b) secure a 100-year-very cheap lease or © militarily knock sense in Denmark.

Return to Monroe Doctrine 2.0

That brings us to his simultaneous threats to Panama and Canada, and a “soft invasion” on Mexico.

But before we do that, let’s look at the map with this piece. And then it would dawn on everyone why Trump’s bluster is not such a mad, bad idea.

In this map, you could see Greenland, Canada, Panama Canal and Mexico all in close proximity to the United States.

In other words, Trump is indicating at consolidating his “home” first than worrying about what’s happening in Ukraine, Israel and the rest of the world.

It’s return to US isolationism, the Monroe Doctrine 2.0 if you must, under which the United States looked to keep the two continents of America firmly in its grasp, beyond the reach of its adversaries, even if it meant effecting coups or waging wars.

And boy did it wage coups and wars in Americas. It attacked California, Texas and New Mexico in the 19th century; much of what is today’s western and southwestern United States is entirely made up of “captured lands.”

Mexico halved, the United States went after the rest of Latin America and in the Pacific.The list is long and must wait for some other day. As of now, only Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela are like sore thumbs sticking out.

So Trump’s grand MAGA vision seems a return to the roots of US foreign policy where the rest of the world won’t be abandoned but left in the hands of satellites and those directly affected. The United States meanwhile would forge an impenetrable grip in its neighbourhood and two Americas to keep its enemies at bay.

Panama a ruse to choke China’s trade

Trump says that Panama Canal charges too much from the US ships. It’s a canal which was built by the US money, some $375 millions in early 20th century which in today’s terms is $12 billion. The United States had carved up Gran Colombia and created a new nation Panama for the singular purpose of Canal. The Panama Canal revolutionised the US and international trade as it allowed access to both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. In 1977, the then US president Jimmy Carter kind of gifted it away to Panama which formally came under its control in 1999.

Trump’s point is that Panama is ungrateful; it excessively charges the US ships and has a preferential outlook on China. That Panama has grown so close to China it has broken off its ties with Taiwan.

Trump, of course, is wrong. Toll is charged on Panama Canal based on a ship’s size and tonnage. It can’t be that the US brings in oil and expects to be charged same as some ordinary ship with goods. Monstrous ships need massive flow of freshwater impetus to navigate the Panama Canal and it costs money.

Further, China doesn’t control Panama. A Chinese company in the 1990s won the loading-unloading rights in two of Canal’s ports. It’s the same right as the US holds in other Panama ports. It’s not as if China owns the Panama Canal.

But Trump being Trump, he would’ve none of it. He essentially is seeking a monopoly around the Panama Canal. It would be a good choke point he has in mind over his adversaries, mainly China, whose maritime trade could thus be disrupted with the snap of a finger.

And now on to Canada.

Trump describes Canada as the US’ 51st state; and its prime minister as a US governor. He says: “US can no longer suffer the massive trade deficits and subsidies that Canada needs to stay afloat…If Canada merges, no tariffs; taxes would go down.” In Trump’s view it would also secure the Continent from the Russian and Chinese ships.

Canada is a country which the United States has exploited for last 40 years. It’s companies and corporations hold debt in US dollars. If devastating tariffs are imposed, and the Canadian dollar plunges, it would make imports costlier. There would be big inflation. But if Canada cooperates, it could have some wonderful agreements the US has given to, say a Puerto Rico or Haiti. That’s the contempt Trump doesn’t bother to hide against his brethren Anglo-Saxons neighbours.

And lastly Mexico. Trump promises “soft invasion” to finish off Mexico’s drug cartels which allow illegal immigrants to flow in. Under the US law, it’s not seen as invasion as the purpose is to eliminate cartels who are defined as foreign terrorist organisations. Under international law though of course it still constitutes pure and simple invasion.

These all are wars — and Trump’s would come by trade if not by war.

As long as the world can’t trade without the US dollar, Trump could use the baton of tariff and dollars to browbeat them into submission.

But as we have seen with Russia–and China, Iran and North Korea–it ultimately backfires. And returns with double the force on Washington itself. I mean can the United States do without China’s semi-conductors?

Yet look at it from Trump’s eyes: He is there for only four years. Why worry long term when in short term you could be a hero?

Indeed, that’s the viewpoint of most politicians. Only those who are looking for a long-term haul, such as the BRICS nations, they alone would breathe free air. Others, notably the vassal Europe, would end up being in coma.

That is If they are not laid up, already.