U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has recently taken to calling the Prime Minister of Canada the “Governor… of the Great State of Canada.” In the past days, he has gone beyond the jocular tone that some Canadian ministers have insisted he had, citing quite specific reasons why Canada would benefit from annexation by the States. Canadians, he said, pay taxes that are “far too high.” Trump said 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.”
Upon Monday’s resignation of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, 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!!!”
Despite Trump’s claim that “[m]any Canadians want Canada to become the 51st State,” recent polling shows that only 13% of Canadians want Canada to become a U.S. state with 82% saying they oppose the idea.
While Trump has floated the idea of annexing Canada, his comments on annexing Greenland have gone beyond an idea and taken the tone of an imperative.
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.”
Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede responded that “Greenland belongs to the people of Greenland. We are not for sale and we will not be for sale.”
On December 24, Denmark announced plans to spend at least $1.5 billion on defense spending in Greenland to ensure a “stronger presence” in the Arctic. The plans include long-range drones, inspection ships, sled patrols and airport upgrades to accommodate F-35 fighter jets.
The timing may be an “irony of fate,” as one Danish official says, or it may be the first historical instance of a NATO ally adjusting its defense policy because it feels the need to defend against the United States. Trump’s threats are “an unusually strange way to be an ally,” one Danish politician said.
But the country that may have the most reason to fear Trump’s new expressions of desire for territorial expansion is Panama.
Trump has turned his anger and his imperial solution against Panama over concerns with the Panama Canal. Trump has said “[t]he fees being charged by Panama are ridiculous,” adding that “[t]his complete ‘rip-off’ of our country will immediately stop.” He issued the clear threat that if the “unfair and injudicious” treatment of American ships is not corrected, “we will demand that the Panama Canal be returned to us, in full, and without question.”
Referring to China, Trump also said that the canal is “falling into the wrong hands.” In a Truth Social post, Trump wished a “Merry Christmas to all, including to the wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal.”
Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino vehemently denied the insinuation, saying “There are no Chinese soldiers in the canal, for the love of God.” He said that “every square meter of the Panama Canal and its adjacent zones is part of Panama, and it will continue to be. Our country’s sovereignty and independence are not negotiable.” Trump responded with the ominous post, “We’ll see about that!” He then posted a picture of an American flag flying over the Panama Canal with the caption “Welcome to the United States Canal!”
Panama’s history is tied closely to U.S. imperialism and intervention. In fact, Panama was born out of an act of imperialism designed to acquire the canal.
In a little remembered story, Panama was created to facilitate American ambitions for the canal. When Theodore Roosevelt set out to build the Panama Canal, there was no country of Panama. Panama was a province in Columbia, and the Columbian government was proving to be an obstacle with its unwillingness to surrender its sovereignty over the canal zone.
So, Roosevelt created a small band of revolutionaries who, without the necessity of winning a revolution, simply declared Panama an independent country. In Overthrow, Stephen Kinzer reports that when a Columbian army commander demanded a train to take his troops to Panama, the U.S. cabled ahead to warn of his journey, and he and his men were arrested upon arrival.
The very next day, the U.S. recognized Panama as an independent nation and sent a fleet of warships to protect its new ally. Work on the Panama Canal could now begin.
And the canal would continue to feature in U.S. involvement in Panama. In January 1990, George H.W. Bush, in an unprovoked attack on the civilian population of a nation that had never threatened America, would take out Panama’s Manuel Noriega.
Noriega had been a U.S. asset but had recently become more independent and defiant. The list of sins the U.S. levied against him were many. He refused to extend what he called “a training ground for death squads and repressive right-wing militaries,” or what the U.S. called the School of the Americas. He also came to oppose the American war on Nicaragua and to embrace a peace plan for Central America that Reagan strongly opposed. And he also committed the cardinal canal sin. He explored the idea of building a new Japanese funded canal and, most crucially, insisted that the U.S. honor the Canal Treaty that Carter had negotiated with Panama, granting control of the Panama Canal to Panama. Noriega would later explain what sealed his fate: “the Panamanian invasion was a result of the US rejection of any scenario in which future control of the Panama Canal might be in the hands of an independent, sovereign Panama.”
The UN General Assembly resolved that it “strongly deplores the intervention in Panama by the armed forces of the United States of America, which constitutes a flagrant violation of international law and of the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of states.”
Canada has reason for concern. Greenland may have more reason for fear. But history suggests that Panama may be the nation in Trump’s sights with the most serious reason to fear Trump’s new territorial expansionism.
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.
