What’s behind Trump’s comments on Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal: NPR

With only days left until his inauguration, President-elect Donald Trump wasted no time returning to the center stage of US foreign policy, delivering his signature bombastic rhetoric and threats that keep friends and foes guessing. The combined method is being demonstrated once again.

His undiplomatic comments in recent days about filling the Panama Canal and annexing Greenland and even Canada have left world leaders scrambling to respond. Panama’s foreign minister has insisted that sovereignty over the vital canal, which was transferred from the United States a quarter of a century ago, is “non-negotiable”. The Prime Minister of Denmark, a NATO member state that has jurisdiction over the autonomous region of Greenland, asserted that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.” And outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau quipped that there was a “non-zero chance” that a merger with the United States would “snowball”.

Here are four things you need to know about President Trump’s recent comments.

Most experts agree that President Trump is unlikely to use military force.

President Trump said at a press conference earlier this week that he would not rule out the use of military or economic coercion to gain control of the Panama Canal and Greenland, arguing that both are necessary for U.S. security. did.

But Dan Hamilton, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution, said the president-elect’s comments are more like a negotiating tactic than a real threat.

“A lot of it is overblown and overblown,” Hamilton says. “This is also a proven tactic of Donald Trump: confuse your negotiators and put them at a disadvantage because they want a better deal for their real goals.”

In the case of Greenland and Panama, those “real goals” include keeping China and other potential adversaries at bay. This is something of a throwback to the Monroe Doctrine, a policy first supported by President James Monroe as a warning to Europeans more than two centuries ago. It had the authority not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, which the United States regarded as its sole authority.

“We need Greenland for national security purposes,” President Trump said at a press conference Tuesday. “I’m talking about protecting the free world. If you look outside — you don’t even need binoculars — you can see it. There are Chinese ships everywhere. There are Russian ships everywhere. There’s a ship. We won’t allow it. We won’t allow it. ”

Brent Sadler, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said Greenland could become increasingly important “as the Arctic climate warms and the ice sheet shrinks, if shipping along that route becomes possible.” states.

“Geography is really important, and the geography of Greenland is very strategic,” said Sadler, a retired U.S. Navy captain. “We do not want China to be economically or militarily located in a very important conduit for attack against the United States.”

In the case of Greenland, President Trump likely wants to maintain and possibly deepen the U.S. military presence in Greenland and ensure “better access to minerals and materials important to the United States.” Mr. Hamilton says.

The Arctic region, whose leaders are pushing for independence from Denmark, was a key Cold War outpost for the United States, which still maintains Pitufik Cosmodrome (formerly Thule Air Base) in Greenland. Meanwhile, China is increasingly seeking joint ventures to exploit Greenland’s rich “rare earth” minerals with unusual names such as neodymium, cerium and lanthanum, which are essential to modern technology industries.

Greg Curley of the Atlantic Council wrote that China is also one of the main concerns in Panama, as Chinese companies “operate ports at both ends of the canal.”

Whatever Trump’s intentions, Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at Brookings, believes it’s important not to underestimate him. O’Hanlon called President Trump’s comments about the use of military force “crazy talk,” but warned: A sign of something that might actually happen. ”

World leaders still figuring out how to respond to Trump 2.0

During his first term, Trump criticized NATO and pulled the U.S. out of the Transatlantic Security Treaty based on false claims that NATO members “owed[the U.S.]enormous reparations.” He even threatened to have him leave.

Douglas Lute, who served as U.S. ambassador to NATO during the Obama administration, said during his first term that alliance leaders viewed Trump as “unpredictable, anxious, and moving toward chaos.” .

But they also understood that “his style is one of speaking out in public, especially to the domestic political base, and ultimately does not have much impact on major policy.” Mr. Lute says there is.

“Trump is great at drawing people in and sending them into hysteria,” said Leslie Binjamuri, director of the United States and Americas program at London-based Chatham House. She wonders, “How soon will Europeans start thinking strategically about this?”

“It’s early days, we don’t have any information yet… What could be at stake here strategically? What can we work on behind the scenes with the incoming Trump administration?” she said. says. “If this is about sea lanes and critical minerals and geopolitical competition, then what are we supposed to do? At this point, it’s just anger, anger, admonition,” the world said. said the leaders.

Brookings University’s O’Hanlon said President Trump’s comments, particularly regarding Greenland, cross NATO lines. He says that even if the possibility is low, if military force is actually used, the mutual defense provisions of the NATO Charter need to be critically examined.

“If[the United States]attacks Denmark, all other NATO countries will be obligated to decide whether to defend Denmark or not,” he says. “I’m not saying there’s going to be a civil war within NATO, but things could get pretty tough.”

Some see Trump’s tactics as a modern version of Nixon’s “madman theory.”

Former President Richard Nixon is often credited with strategies aimed at convincing opponents of a leader’s potential for insanity as a way to instill fear and gain an advantage in international relations.

Roseanne McManus, an associate professor of political science at Pennsylvania State University, said that while the modern version of the so-called “madman theory” or “madman strategy” was outlined in the late 1950s, there are hints from centuries ago. are. For example, Niccolò Machiavelli said in 1517, “Sometimes it is very wise to simulate madness.”

Nixon used the madman theory to confuse the Soviet leadership and bring North Vietnam to the negotiating table in an attempt to end the war there. Among other things, Nixon’s strategy included “veiled nuclear threats aimed at intimidating patrons in Hanoi and Moscow,” and “projecting the idea that[Nixon]was ‘crazy.’ , authorizing the covert vigilance of U.S. nuclear forces around the world to coerce adversaries into nuclear attacks.” Please stand back,” according to the National Security Archive.

McManus said there is reason to believe that “Trump is intentionally using the lunacy theory to gain a negotiating advantage and trying to make people think he’s a little crazy.”

Mr. Trump’s seeming erratic behavior is not new to world leaders who have dealt with him during his first term as president, but traditionally, “many NATO countries , they’re used to very predictable U.S. involvement. And this unpredictability…makes them much less comfortable,” she says.

The president-elect wants to confuse America’s allies and expects that “if both countries want good relations with the United States, they’re going to have to prepare in advance,” Hamilton said.

Daniel Drezner, a professor of international politics at Tufts University, posed the question, “Does the madman theory actually work?” in an essay in this week’s Foreign Policy magazine. I think there are clear differences between the strategies of the Nixon and Trump versions. “In Trump’s case, it’s just that he’s legitimately unpredictable,” he says. “He ranges wildly from threats and outrage to talk of love letters,” he said, referring to Trump’s dealings with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during his first term.

President Trump’s remarks could backfire

For coercion to work, Drezner said, Trump needs to make a “credible promise to actually do the crazy things you’re threatening,” and then a credible promise to back off if conditions are met. He added that it must be done.

He said President Trump is overestimating his negotiating strategy. “A strong conceptual mistake that President Trump made in his first term and will continue to make in his second term is that he believes that because he can bully allies, he can extract similar concessions from the Chinas and Russias of the world. “This is our belief,” Drezner said. Say.

Mr. McManus, of Pennsylvania State University, said that if Mr. Trump’s strategy does indeed qualify as a “lunatic” approach, it would likely reach a point of diminishing returns. “If you act irrationally all the time, no one will trust you and no one will want to enter into an agreement with you,” she says. “It is more difficult for them to make credible promises or commitments or credible guarantees.”

Lieut, a former NATO ambassador, calls this a “crywolf” scenario. Not only does that erode trust, he says, but it also incurs an “opportunity cost.”

“Ultimately, trust is lost and people end up spending time worrying about things that won’t happen,” he says. “It consumes time and energy… that could be better spent in other ways, such as supporting Ukraine.”