Trump could negotiate a North American Union Agreement with Canada and an independent Greenland while using diplomacy to negotiate a return of the Panama Canal ports to US control.

David T. Pyne

Jan 8

President-Elect Donald J. Trump speaking to reporters at a marathon Mar-a-Lago press conference where he called for the US annexation of Canada and Greenland and a return of the Panama Canal from the PRC to the US

Yesterday, President-Elect Donald J. Trump offered up a commanding performance at a nearly two-hour press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort which he described as “The Winter White House,” addressing a host of issues, demonstrating a strong contrast with Biden who is unable to conduct a press conference lasting even two minutes without his handlers yelling at reporters that the event is over. During the conference, Trump reiterated his controversial plans to annex Canada utilizing economic coercion, while he would not rule out the use of the US military to retake control of Greenland and the Panama Canal. He also threatened to rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America if they do not stop the illegal immigration invasion of the US.

The President’s justifications for each proposal are centered on concerns regarding trade, immigration and national security. With regards to Canada, Trump has stated he wants to see a tariff free zone between Canada and the United States–two huge North American neighboring nations which are respectively the second and third largest nations in the world with a lower tax burden and free speech for Canadian citizens. He has called Greenland a territory of great strategic importance to US national security and implied that US control of the territory would help the US prevail in its increasing competition with Russia and China over control of the Arctic region. He has also stated that US control of the Panama Canal is a strategic imperative to ensure international shipping is not disrupted during war as well as saving money by removing the burden of increasing Panamanian transit fees.

Globalists have long championed a neo-imperialist strategy of liberal hegemony and US global dominance that puts America last, decrying America First conservatives for supposedly espousing an “isolationist” foreign policy yet now they denounce Trump’s America First initiatives to increase US security and influence over the Northern Hemisphere as too imperialistic. Of course, Republicans have never supported an isolationist foreign policy. Prior to World War Two, they supported a policy of hemispheric hegemony, which is what Trump’s policy initiatives for greater integration with Canada and Greenland and retaking control of the Panama Canal from the PRC signify.

A Revitalized Monroe Doctrine

Taken in total, the President’s proposals represent a welcome change in US policy to re-enforce the Monroe Doctrine and re-assert US dominance over the Western Hemisphere represent a tremendous opportunity for the US to reorient itself from being a global superpower, subject to increasing imperial overstretch and fighting regime change wars of indefinite duration, back to hemispheric superpower status. This is exactly what I have been calling for since 2003 in order to greatly enhance US national security and to minimize the risks that the US would stumble into an unnecessary war with the Sino-Russian military alliance over nations located along their borders half a world away.

The Monroe Doctrine formed the foundation of US foreign policy from 1823 until President John F. Kennedy pledged the US would never invade Communist Cuba as part of a negotiated agreement to end the Cuban Missile Crisis and to a lesser degree until the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. However, it has largely been neglected since the end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union allowing Russia and especially China to make major inroads in increasing their influence in Latin America particularly with regards to Communist Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela as well as with regards to Chinese port facilities in Peru and Argentina.

Trump’s policies for greater economic and security integration with Canada, Greenland and Panama should be pursued in conjunction with his proposals to swiftly end Americas proxy wars against Russia in Ukraine and against Iran in the Middle East while employing a skillful combination of diplomacy and deterrence to prevent the outbreak of an unnecessary war with the PRC over Taiwan. As part of a revitalized Monroe Doctrine, the US should take concerted action with its allies to isolate Communist Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela both economically and militarily using both economic sanctions and reciprocal agreements with Russia and China in which we agree to pursue a policy of non-interference in their spheres of influence (i.e. the former Soviet republics including Ukraine, Taiwan and the South China Sea) in exchange for them vacating the Western Hemisphere.

Panama

The single most important action the US could take to achieve President Trump’s objective of renewing the Monroe Doctrine would be to retake military control of the Panama Canal ports on either end of the canal currently controlled by the PRC due to its vital importance to the US as a strategic choke point both for international trade as well as for US Navy warships and supply ships that would be vital in the event of the outbreak of a great power war.

However, Trump’s proposal to regain control of the Panama Canal would likely be the most challenging to achieve due to the presence of several hundred PLA troops stationed at the ports on both the Atlantic and Pacific sides of the canal. China will not be persuaded to give up control of the strategically positioned canal ports without a fight, absent major US concessions. It is very likely that the only way they could be persuaded to do so would be if the US would mediate a confederation agreement between the PRC and Taiwan along the lines I have been advocating.China’s control of these canal ports represent a flagrant violation of the Neutrality Treaty under which the US returned the canal to Panamanian control. This would give the US a legal justification for taking unilateral military action to retake control of them particularly in the event China initiates an air and naval blockade of Taiwan later this year as seems increasingly likely should negotiations with Beijing to return control of the canal to the US diplomatically prove unsuccessful. The US could offer to pay Panama for a long-term fifty-year or longer lease of the canal ports. Panama could continue to control the rest of the Panama Canal Zone if it reduced its transit rates to more reasonable levels.

Greenland

In 1951, President Harry Truman offered to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100 billion in gold—the equivalent of $1.5 trillion.At the time Truman stated that Greenland was a strategically valuable territory “indispensable to the safety of the United States.” Trump reiterated its strategic importance in a statement announcing his nominee for US ambassador to Denmark: “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.”

Since Danish officials have repeatedly declared that Greenland, which has a population of only 54,000 people, is not for sale and presumably would also oppose the creation of a US-Danish condominium over a self-ruling, autonomous Greenland, President Trump should support its independence as the next best solution. Trump has stated he “would tariff Denmark at a very high level” if Denmark opposed a Greenland referendum on independence.

All Trump would need to do is to publicly state if Greenland declares independence, the US would guarantee it militarily. Denmark wouldn’t dare challenge such a US military guarantee. Then, the US could negotiate a closer economic and security agreement with it after it became an independent state essentially updating the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement which already provides a strong basis for a larger US military presence and influence over Greenland.As a concession to Denmark, Trump could announce his support for the reunification of Denmark and Iceland.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announcing his resignation on Monday after which he declared “there is no chance in hell that Canada will become a part of the United States.”

A North American Union

Trump’s stated desire to annex Canada is reminiscent of former Republican presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan’s call in his book, “A Republic, Not an Empire—Reclaiming America’s Destiny” published over a quarter century ago for the US to annex all the other Canadian provinces were Quebec to secede forming a huge and powerful new North American Union. While Trump’s proposal to make Canada “the 51^st state” is unrealistic, there are other more promising alternatives the US could pursue to achieve greater economic and security integration with our neighbor to the north as well as Greenland that would have a far greater chance of being accepted by them as mutually beneficial. Of course, the foundation of any unification proposal between the US and Canada should be based on the principles of equality and mutual respect between the two sovereign nations rather than an attempt to make America’s longtime ally to the north subservient to the US. There is no other way that Canada would ever agree to establish joint political institutions except on that basis.

Rather than attempting to annex Canada, President Trump could instead utilize economic pressure from his imposition of 25 percent tariffs on all Canadian goods to encourage them to sign an agreement establishing a North American Union (NAU) between the US and Canada that would satisfy President Trump’s call for increased US influence over America’s northern neighbor and long-time ally. The center point of this agreement would be a joint border policy to defend against potential threats from terrorists, foreign state actors and criminal syndicates along with a customs union abolishing all bilateral tariffs and an overseeing international body to formulate such policies. It might also include the US lease of certain Canadian naval/air bases to the US or better yet make a few of them joint US-Canadian (NAU) military bases though that likely would not be necessary to achieve President Trump’s primary objective of securing our northern border.

As noted previously, Trump could also support Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede’s longtime call for independence from Denmark in exchange for it joining the new North American Union with the US and Canada modeled on the European Union (EU) in which each national leader would have equal status. Once independence was declared, the US could guarantee Greenland’s independence using its military forces to defend the nascent country against foreign attack. As a sparsely populated newly independent state, Greenland would need US protection to ensure its security and independence. Realistically, there is no foreseeable way Egede can achieve independence for Greenland without US support given the proclamations by Danish leaders that Greenland will forever remain under Danish control so it would be in his interest to negotiate a deal with the US to achieve it.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede, a long-time supporter of independence from Denmark

Greenland’s independence would be guaranteed under the terms of its entry into the North American Union which could initially be formed between the US and Greenland alone as the US continued to negotiate the terms of Canada’s entry. The US would provide for its security and could forge an economic union with Greenland with the US dollar as its new currency. Despite being referred to as “a Union”, the EU most closely resembles a confederation as member states retain a high level of sovereignty. Such a confederation, founded on the principle of equality for the US and Canada and continued self-rule for Greenland, would preserve a substantial level of independence for both Canada and Greenland on the level of EU member-states while going far to achieve President Trump’s objectives of achieving greater economic and security integration with the US. Such a North American Union could have a joint commission with appointed members from each member state to propose new policies, and optionally incorporate an economic union with a joint currency, based on the US dollar. It would also seek to establish joint trade, immigration, border, foreign and defense policies. However, unlike the EU, the NAU would not have its own president.

Just like the EU, each member state would retain its current political and electoral systems, customs, official languages and leadership. The US Congress and the Canadian Parliament would each have the right to amend and approve, or veto, the proposals of a joint North American Union Commission or Congress with elected or appointed representatives of the member states. Greenland would not have veto power over proposals by the NAU Council or Congress but would be represented in that rule-making body. In return for joining a North American Union, the US would commit to pay the cost of Greenland’s government budget at current levels with annual increases for inflation in perpetuity allowing its citizens to live their lives tax free. The US could also increase its economic and military integration with Greenland and US companies could help mine its abundant oil, natural gas and strategically important uranium resources, sharing the proceeds to enrich its citizens.

If the US were to join in some sort of political union with Canada and Greenland, it would constitute the largest political entity in the world by far with 8.5 million square miles with over 380 million people, vaulting ahead of Russia in size and approximating the extent of the defunct Soviet Union which boasted over 8.6 million square miles. If he were successful in doing so, Trump would be remembered as one of America’s greatest and most historic presidents. A grander achievement for the advancement of US national security interests could hardly be imagined. It would be Making America Great Again on steroids. Accordingly, US leaders in both parties should unite behind Trump in his efforts to achieve this historic achievement with negotiated compromise agreements that are mutually beneficial to all parties concerned.