Hello and welcome to the eighth post of Talking Points! During his current term as the President, Donald Trump has suggested that the United States should acquire territory including Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. In particular, he has referred to Canada becoming the 51st state, has stated that the United States needs Greenland for security purposes, and has argued that Panama has favored China in use of the Canal. Although I am unsure of whether or not he is serious, such proposals have rattled the allies of the United States. Indeed, this talk has worsened its relationship with Canada, one of the closest partners of the United States, injured its alliance with Denmark, a vital ally in NATO, and alarmed Panama, whose eponymous canal carries 5% of all global trade. Therefore, it is imperative to understand the history of American imperialism, how it parallels European colonialism, the fate of European colonialism, American neocolonialism in the Cold War, how the current world order responds to wars of aggression, and how the United States would be affected by such responses. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate that if he wants the United States to have access to such resources and trade routes, Donald Trump should negotiate deal, rather than annexation, and that he should cease talking about annexation.

To begin, I think it is important to understand what strategic advantages that the acquisition of Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal would provide to the United States. Both Canada and Greenland would provide the United States access to extensive natural resources and a greater position in the Arctic. Considering the economic opportunities afforded by the resources, in addition to the future of trade in the Arctic by ship, theoretically the United States would gain access to cheap resources, and the ability to quickly transport them, should it acquire Canada and Greenland. In addition, control of the Panama Canal, which connects the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, would provide the United States the collection of revenue from it, the ability to reward its allies with cheaper passage, and deny its enemies transport through it. Thus, the United States would have the same reasons that all imperial and colonizing powers have, access to natural resources and trade.

Indeed, the United States has a long history of the acquisition of territory. For example, in 1803, the United States purchased numerous French colonies in North America, approximately 828,000 square miles. In 1848, the United States won the Mexican-American War, annexing what is now the entire Southwestern United States. In 1867, the United States purchased Alaska from the Russian Empire. In 1898, the United States fought and won the Spanish-American War, securing Caribbean and Oceanic islands, including the Philippines. In 1900, the United States admitted Hawaii as a territory, following a period where its indigenous Kingdom was overthrown, and replaced by Hawaiian businessmen descended from American settlers. Finally, in 1903, the United States secured a portion of Panama around its recently built Canal, to the ire of the Panamanian Government, whose independence was arranged by the United States. Considering these acquisitions, it is clear that from throughout the entirety of the 19th Century, the United States regularly and forcibly annexed territory.

This behavior, known as imperialism and colonialism, was not unique to the United States, with European Powers establishing vast Empires throughout Asia and Africa. For example, the 1884 to 1885 Berlin Conference established what European powers would control what part of Africa. While most of Africa was taken by the British Empire and French Empire, other parts were taken by Germany, Italy, Spain, and Portugal. Africa has vast natural resources, which can prove to be a great source of wealth for whoever controls them. Furthermore, the transport of these resources also provides great opportunity. It was the construction of the Suez Canal which inspired the creation of Panama Canal. In the same way that the Panama Canal provided the US with great power through its ability to control trade between the Pacific and the Atlantic, the Suez Canal afforded the British Empire the power to control trade between two major waterways. The Suez Canal connects to the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea, which in turn connects to the Indian Ocean.

Despite the size of these Empires and their economic power, they were not infinite. World War One caused massive damage to France and the United Kingdom, as did World War Two. With this damage, it was no longer viable or worthwhile to maintain these colonies, and former colonies received independence due to economic pressure and pressure from new superpowers and rivals, the United States and the Soviet Union. In fact it was the United States and the Soviet Union, whose political pressure forced Britain, France, and Israel to withdraw from their invasion of Egypt, which was a response to Egypt nationalizing the Suez Canal. The failure of this invasion helped solidify the end of traditional colonialism and imperialism, where colonies are ruled directly, paving the way for neocolonialism, where nominally independent countries are ruled indirectly.

The United States engaged in neocolonialism extensively during the Cold War, particularly in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. For example, in Latin America, the Central Intelligence Agency supported Operation: Condor, a campaign of assassination, political repression, and torture, by and in support of right-wing governments against their left-wing political enemies. In Africa, the United States used international aid, security assistance, and investment, to secure influence over former colonies, and keep them opposed to the Soviet Union. In the Middle East, the United States and the United Kingdom overthrew the democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran, in response to Iran nationalizing a British oil company which did not cooperate with the government. Finally, in Asia, the United States intervened militarily in the Korean War and Vietnam War, to keep Korea and Vietnam from establishing socialist governments. While these cases do demonstrate that the United States has engaged in some level of colonialism, they also demonstrate that the United States has not annexed territory in over a century.

In fact, it is a critical component of the post-war world order, an order which the United States helped engineer and lead, that territory is not forcibly annexed. For example, under the Presidency of Joe Biden, the United States and its Allies in NATO, responded to the 2022 Russian Invasion of Ukraine by furnishing Ukraine with extensive aid. This invasion, which has a stated goal of replacing the democratically-elected government of Ukraine with a pro-Russian one, in addition to the annexation of the Donbas and Crimea, is one that I would consider a rarity in today’s world. Rather, the conflict between countries tends to be economic and diplomatic in nature. For example, sanctions, are used to damage the economy of countries, by restricting their access to world markets, diplomatic services, or even sports. In fact, the United States and its allies have sanctioned Russia heavily, cutting off Russian oligarchs from their assets, and even seizing their yachts. I would argue that the United States, should it engage in any war of aggression, would face the same kind of political and economic pressure that Russia and other countries have faced in their own wars of aggression.

These are the very tools that the world would most likely use against the United States. For example, as the United States imports many of the goods it buys, tariffs and embargoes would deny the US access to the goods it needs. Furthermore, what manufacturing the United States does engage, would become impossible, as it would likely lose the necessary materials. A lack of export capability would cost the American economy potentially billions in lost revenue. The United States Military would likely be forced out of overseas military bases, worsening its ability to project power. Embassies would be closed, making it significantly more difficult for Americans to travel internationally. Finance restrictions would prevent international investment in the United States, costing American business billions in lost investments. Considering all of these potential losses due to international pressure, I think it is clear that the United States would likely suffer greatly if it were to engage in forcible annexations.

It may very well be the case that the United States would benefit from the resources and trade routes provided by control of Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. However, it is also the case that Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal have rejected the idea of US control, and have reacted with understandable alarm. Furthermore, should the United States engage in wars of aggression to annex these territories, I think it is extremely likely it would face massive international pressure, transforming it to a pariah state on the level of Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Thus, such behavior would cost the United States more than it would benefit. Rather, if Donald Trump is serious and the United States to have access to these resources and trade routes, he should do what he supposedly does best as a businessman, negotiate an economic deal for these resources and trade routes. If he is not serious, he needs to clarify, as these proposals are seriously damaging the image of the United States, among both its people and the international community. Under no circumstance, should the United States annex Canada, Greenland, or the Panama Canal, as the downsides far outweigh any benefits.