President Donald Trump has claimed the U.S. would acquire Canada, the Panama Canal and more recently, Greenland, during his second term in the White House.
Beyond mere interventions, he has explicitly advocated for the territorial expansion of the United States of America more than any contemporary U.S. president. However, the proposed Greenland strategy has sparked mixed reactions, including some domestic approval, Republican intra-party divisions and coordinated international opposition.
Meanwhile, Trump also previously threatened to violate Denmark’s sovereignty to acquire Greenland, further cementing his reputation for inflammatory rhetoric and a willingness to ignore, disrupt and reshape the institutional rules of the game.
Therefore, what exactly President Trump’s expansionist agenda will manifest in the long run remains an open question.
Credibility shaped by recent violence and precedent
The prior threat of violence came in the wake of a military intervention in Venezuela that removed Nicolas Maduro from power.
The U.S. is also currently deploying higher levels of police violence domestically, via immigration enforcement raids. The threat of military action carried the weight of increased credibility, in tandem with long-standing domestic and international perceptions the Trump presidency represents a wild card relative to prior U.S. leadership.
In historical perspective, territorial expansion through diplomacy and violence is nothing new. Even attempts to acquire Greenland have been on the agendas of prior presidents. Yet, Trump’s rhetorical style is certainly unique relative to recent decades and has been productive of nationalist fervor, consternation, incredulity and action. It was not the first threat, nor do world leaders and the American public have any reason to expect it to be the last.
Manifest destiny and uncertain limits of power
In the 1850s, Americans imagined U.S. territory extending to Brazil. Amidst the continued realization of “manifest destiny” and inspired by visions of U.S. empire throughout Latin America, American vigilantes even began violently attempting to claim territory for the U.S. in Central America, generally while seeking to expand the frontiers of slavery.
While those unsanctioned efforts were thwarted by local resistance, they highlight that no one knew what the eventual limits on American power might become.
The world was, and remains, malleable, caught between structure, contingency and agency; vast periods of normality and the potential for critical junctures with fateful decisions in the hands of one man.
Expansion as popular policy and international provocation
In the 1800s, territorial expansion was extremely popular with the public. It fueled the nation’s growth and was a consistent source of opportunity.
Meanwhile, despite the Monroe Doctrine and the British support behind it, continental European powers still saw opportunity in American territories as well as military and economic threats from continued U.S. expansion.
As an example, France occupied Mexico and attempted to establish an empire in the 1860s, with Napoleon III specifically citing the French interest in preventing further U.S. expansion as one of multiple reasons. One military power’s expansion provoked another to respond similarly to protect their relative military and economic capabilities.
Modern consequences in a fragile alliance system
Today, as in the past, expansion and the threat thereof similarly produce reactions from the increasingly intertwined players within the international system. For example, European leaders have developed a unified opposition and concerns about the future of the NATO alliance are growing.
These developments might increase the chance for more authoritarian regimes, such as in Russia and China, to seize opportunities that might arise in a future characterized by weakened U.S. alliances, likely to the significant detriment of American security interests and democracy. Whereas prior episodes of expansion in the 19th century are viewed as having contributed to the establishment and consolidation of U.S. political and economic power, the new international arena might be one in which old strategies produce radically different results.
Short-term gains and long-term costs
Everyone has an incentive to expand and to do so non-cooperatively, especially in the short run. However, what feels good today might be more like a nasty hangover tomorrow. Defections within the international system, especially in the form of territorial conquest or the threat thereof, are likely to produce reactions both in the present and in the post-Trump era.
While there are benefits to gaining resources and territory today, we ought to question whether the action as well as the means deployed are more costly overall.
Even in the case of Venezuela, where removing Maduro reduces the influence of U.S. rivals in the Western hemisphere, there are multiple paths to accomplishing the same goal, but only one we have travelled and only one that will shape our shared future. Rather than the force of nonviolence and international cooperation — true leadership — the current administration achieved instant gratification.
The legacy taking shape
Intuitively, violent interventions legitimize similar actions by rival states. Threats of violence against allies and other foreign actors legitimize similar actions in the eyes of other countries’ citizens. Expanding territorially inspires rival actors to act similarly to defend relative military and economic capabilities in an uncertain, anxious and non-cooperative world. As such, we must question what future Trump’s rhetoric and actions are locking us into.
What are “We the People” manifesting? Barack Obama may have promised to bring peace and even won a Nobel Peace Prize, but he was also a wartime president who largely continued the mess he inherited. We can see that clearly now with hindsight.
Trump will similarly leave a legacy after his second or, maybe, third term or perhaps an aftermath. Unfortunately, we cannot yet see it through the haze, but we can imagine.
Featured image: Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay
Edited by Nancy Martin & James Sutton
