Recent threatening statements by incoming President Donald Trump have raised the question of why any country would risk partnering with the United States. But the erosion in trust has not begun with the incoming Trump administration.
Several years ago, Saudi Arabia began to reexamine its relationship with the United States. Their confidence had been shaken by the unreliability of the partnership. President Biden’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan shocked the Saudis, but so too, Annelle Sheline, Research Fellow for the Middle East Program at the Quincy Institute, told me, did “Obama’s signing of the JCPOA” and “Trump’s lack of response after the September 2019 attacks on Saudi oil facilities.” The damage caused by three consecutive presidents to trust in the partnership helped convince Saudi Arabia to explore closer relationships with Iran, Russia and China.
While Saudi Arabia’s trust in partnering with the U.S. waned because the U.S. made a nuclear agreement with Iran, Iran’s trust in partnering with the U.S. waned because the U.S. broke it. Hardliners in Iran had warned then President Hassan Rouhani that his trust in America would be repaid with broken promises. Despite these warnings, Rouhani placed Iran’s future in trusting the U.S. to keep their promises and honor their agreements. The hardliners were vindicated when Trump illegally pulled out of the JCPOA nuclear agreement. The proof that a partnership with the U.S. was not to be trusted helped convince Iran to forge ever tighter relationships with Russia and China.
America’s reliability as a partner was potentially further threatened by the blowing up of the Nord Stream pipeline. On September 26, 2022, the Nord Stream pipeline that transported Russian gas to Europe exploded. The West immediately blamed Russia. But then The Washington Post reported that intelligence officials said “[t]here is no evidence at this point that Russia was behind the sabotage,” and The Wall Street Journal reported that there is a “growing sense among investigators in the U.S. and Europe that neither Russian-government nor pro-Russian operatives were behind the sabotage.”
Then, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh published a detailed account of the “act of war” that concluded that it was carried out by the United States. If Hersh is right, then the U.S. betrayed Germany. The single biggest economic and environmental act of terrorism sent one of America’s biggest economic and military allies into an economic plunge.
The erosion in trust has been accelerated and widened by recent remarks that have the sound more of threatening imperialism than partnership. Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs on Canadian imports seems intended as an economic assault sufficient to make one of America’s closest neighbors and allies question its sovereignty. As such, it is the threat of economic war.
Though Trump has ruled out military force against Canada, he has said that he would use “economic force.” Challenging Canada’s sovereignty, Trump called the border between the two countries an “artificially drawn line” and said that if “you get rid of [it]… take a look at what that looks like. And it would also be much better for national security.”
Canadians are no longer taking Trump’s remarks as a joke. Once, unthinkable, a third of Canadians think Trump is serious, and, reflecting the new distrust in the U.S. as a partner, nearly two thirds don’t trust him to keep his word not to use military force.
Trump has taken the unusual and undiplomatic step of referring to the Prime Minister of Canada as the “Governor… of the Great State of Canada.” He said Canadians pay taxes that are “far too high” and that, if Canada “was to become our 51st State, their Taxes would be cut by more than 60%, their businesses would immediately double in size, and they would be militarily protected like no other Country anywhere in the World.” Two weeks later, Trump posted, “Many people in Canada LOVE being the 51st State… If Canada merged with the U.S., there would be no Tariffs, taxes would go way down, and they would be TOTALLY SECURE from the threat of the Russian and Chinese Ships that are constantly surrounding them. Together, what a great Nation it would be!!!”
Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, responded that “There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States.”
Despite Trump’s claim that “[m]any Canadians want Canada to become the 51st State,” the most recent polling shows that 90% of Canadians oppose joining the United States.
That Trump’s policies are affecting perceptions of partnership with the U.S. is reflected in polling of Canadians. Canada has been one of the United States’s closest partners, but favorable views of the U.S. are now down 15 points from half a year ago, and “Canadians are now three-times as likely to view the U.S. as an enemy or a potential threat compared with two years ago.”
The citizens of Greenland and Denmark were taken as much by surprise as Canadians by recent remarks of Trump’s.
Denmark maintains sovereignty over the autonomous territory of Greenland. But Trump has called acquiring Greenland a necessity: “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”
Worse even than his statements on Canada, Trump has refused to rule out taking Greenland militarily. When asked if he would rule out military force, Trump refused, saying, “I’m not going to commit to that. It might be that you’ll have to do something… We need Greenland for national security purposes.”
Like Canadians, the people of Greenland and Denmark were taken by surprise by their ally’s comments. Greenland’s prime minister, Múte Egede, said that “all of us were shocked” by Trump’s statements. He responded that “Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland. We are not for sale and we will not be for sale.”
Like Canada, Denmark is an unlikely target for American imperialism. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the U.S. Denmark’s “most important and closest ally.” A European diplomat told Axios that Denmark is one the United States’ closest allies in the European Union. The diplomat said on one imagined Denmark would be “the first country with which Trump would pick a fight.”
Making military threats against Denmark is nothing less than an unprecedented military threat against a NATO ally. The threat drew warnings from America’s most powerful allies in the EU. “The principle of the inviolability of borders applies to every country,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said, “…no matter whether it’s a very small one or a very powerful one”. France’s Foreign Minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, added that “There is obviously no question that the European Union would let other nations of the world attack its sovereign borders, whoever they are. We are a strong continent.”
Reflecting the newly vulnerable trust in America as a partner, Barrot said that the world has “entered into an era that sees the return of the survival of the fittest” and called on Europe to “wake up [and] build up our strength.”
When Donald Trump Jr. landed in Greenland on January 7, Trump wrote, “The reception has been great. They, and the Free World, need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”
The melting polar ice has exposed the value of Greenland’s natural resources and shipping routes. Both Greenland and Denmark have expressed their willingness to work with the United States. Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede said, “The reality is we are going to work with the U.S. – yesterday, today and tomorrow.” In secret messages, Denmark has told Trump’s team that they are willing to talk about increasing U.S. military presence in Greenland.
If Trump’s coveting of Greenland was out of purely security concerns, he has solutions more diplomatic than military force. The U.S. already has a large military base in Greenland, and a 1951 treaty already enshrines the cooperation of the United States, Denmark and Greenland in defending the island. If security were the sole concern, the U.S. could enhance the security of Greenland through its existing diplomatic agreements.
But a second motive has been suggested. “I can say this,” Trump said, “we need them for economic security.” Mike Waltz, Trump’s pick for national security advisor, recently conflated the security and economic motivations. “This is about critical minerals,” he said. “This is about natural resources. This is about, as the polar ice caps pull back, the Chinese are now cranking out icebreakers and pushing up there as well. So, it’s oil and gas. It’s our national security. It’s critical minerals.” But security only got one line.
Canada is one of America’s closest and most trusted economic, diplomatic, cultural and military partners. Denmark is a founding member of NATO and one of America’s closest partners in the EU. Trump’s threat against Canada must make other countries question their economic partnership with the U.S. when existential tariffs could be levied at them, too, at any time; Trump’s military threats against Denmark must make other countries question their military partnerships with the U.S. when their security guarantees could be annulled at any time and they, too, could face military coercion. Trump’s threats raise the suddenly urgent question of why any country would risk partnering with the United States.
Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net.